Message from the Queen

Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
	"I have received your address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative, in so far as it relates to the selection of names for life peerages, should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the establishment of a commission to make proposals for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958."

NHS Funding

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they propose to raise the United Kingdom's ratio of health spending to gross domestic product to the European Union average, and how.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have already provided substantial extra investment for the National Health Service. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we are entirely confident that we will be able to sustain those increases in funding over time and match the European Union average as a proportion of gross domestic product devoted to healthcare.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is similar to the formula he used in the debate last week. However, it is clear that a real annual expenditure rise of 5 per cent committed to, or aspired to, by the Prime Minister will not hit the European average of health spending in six years. What will the Government now do? Will they admit that the Prime Minister got his arithmetic wrong and that a great deal more money is needed? Will they continue to pull the wool over the public's eyes? Alternatively, will they take a principled stance, forgo the 1p cut in income tax in April, and spend the money on the health service?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer is none of those. We have made it clear that we are committed to modernising the National Health Service. Historically, the NHS has had around 3 per cent growth per year. However, that has not been consistent. The figure has been up and down--boom and bust. As a result, there has been no long-term planning. In the current comprehensive spending review we have made a quantum leap to around 5 per cent in real growth. That is a measure of our commitment to funding the NHS and our determination to modernise it.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the crude average of European health spending is around 8 per cent. The weighted average, allowing for sizes of population in each European Union member state, is around 8.6 per cent. Which target are the Government aiming for?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that in 1997 the EU total average healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 8 per cent. I repeat what I said and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained. Resources for the NHS will be matched by a determination to modernise the health service. He also made clear that levels of public spending are dependent on economic performance. However, as he said in another place on 19th January, if we continue to manage the economy properly we shall be able as a nation to afford to get in these real term increases which will over time bring us up to the EU average.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, what has the Treasury informed the Department of Health about the sustainable rate of growth over the next five years?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that because I am not party to those discussions.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the 8 per cent is a simple mathematical average which treats Luxembourg as being the same size as Germany? If the average is weighted for population, the correct average is 8.6 per cent and not 8 per cent.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is one of a number of explanations written by economists and others. So far none has agreed with the other. Many factors come into play when considering these matters: rate of growth in GDP; and spending on health and changes in spending on health in other countries. What is not in doubt is our commitment to the NHS, its sustainability and the necessary funding of the service.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister. However, the Question asks whether the Government propose to raise the ratio of health spending to the European ratio. What is the answer: yes or no?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said to the House of Commons on 19th January. If we continue to manage the economy properly we will as a nation be able to afford to get in these real term increases which will over time bring us up to the EU average. The noble Lord tempts me to comment on details of discussions within the comprehensive spending review which are taking place at present. He knows that I cannot do that.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, recently it has been stated that in their modernisation of the NHS, the Government have seen the benefits of community hospitals. When increasing the budget for the NHS, will the Government find more funds for reopening those community hospitals that they have now closed?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on specific hospitals. However, the noble Lord will recall the speech made last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in which he acknowledged the role of intermediate care and the problems of people inappropriately placed in medical wards within our hospitals. Shortly we shall be publishing the results of the national beds inquiry. We shall address those issues in response to that inquiry.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in order to provide adequate expenditure on the health service--in accordance with what the Prime Minister originally indicated--it will be necessary to revise the priorities of expenditure in the economy as a whole? However, does he further agree that these matters remain in the hands of the Treasury, who have made their view quite clear, requiring little elaboration beyond the necessity for a revision of priorities?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I believe that this Government's commitment to the National Health Service is absolutely clear. We have indicated our commitment and given visible demonstration of it by the record resources we are currently putting into the health service. We shall continue to sustain the National Health Service.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, while accepting that we are paying for two decades of underfunding by the previous government, does the noble Lord nonetheless feel comfortable with the fact that German executives working in the City of London have automatic clauses in their contracts stating that if they fall ill while in the United Kingdom they will immediately return to their country of origin? How soon can that situation be corrected?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to speak of the gross underfunding of the health service during the period of the last government's administration. However, we should note that the Opposition's answer at the moment is to put their trust in private health insurance. I am sure that the British people will put their trust in this Government to sustain the NHS, to provide the resources it requires and to ensure that a first-class quality service is delivered.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the clock shows that we are eight minutes into Question Time. I am perfectly happy to continue with this Question if the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, is happy to have the time spent on his Question constrained.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I believe that the whole House is eager to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winston.

Lord Winston: My Lords, my question is simple and, I believe, can be answered with a "yes" or "no". Is it the impression of my noble friend that the efficiency of our proportion of GDP spending on the health service is every bit as great as it is in the rest of Europe?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. The fact is that the NHS is an extremely efficient system of healthcare. In comparison with social insurance systems in other countries, we find that they spend much more of their resources on bureaucracy and administration. The cumulative effect of that places great burdens on, for example, German and French employers. In effect, those systems have become a tax on jobs. We have a good system in the NHS. We should sustain and support it.

Kosovo: Police and Courts System

Lord Hurd of Westwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contribution they are making to the establishment of an effective police force and court system in Kosovo.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we provide 60 officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the international police force in Kosovo. Thirty-one British police officers are at the OSCE-run Kosovo police school, training the future local police force. Furthermore, we are increasing our contingent of police trainers to 40 officers.
	The establishment of an effective justice system in Kosovo is crucial. The UN Mission in Kosovo has changed the basis of applicable law to that which applied in 1989, before Milosevic removed Kosovo's autonomy. This will help recruit local judges and prosecutors, of which 130 were appointed last month alone.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is it true that, eight months after the Kosovo war, member states have provided the United Nations with less than half of the 4,000 police officers who are required? The result of that failure has been murder and disorder occurring day after day under the noses of our troops. While I understand the difficulties of language and legal codes, does the Minister agree that if we are to be involved in this in any way, we should do the job properly? Does that not mean that we should equip the UN or the European Union to provide, in these cases of failed states, police officers, magistrates and other administrators to help rebuild civil societies?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the 4,700 estimate was a re-estimate and was not the original figure adopted. The reassessment took place because the needs of Kosovo were seen to be more acute. The international community is addressing that issue with vigour. The noble Lord is right to say that it is a matter of concern. However, the UK contribution--which, as I have just said, has been increased--is a significant one. The 60 police officers recruited from the RUC to the international police force are proving to be very sensitive and effective in their operations. Of course we appreciate that this matter needs further close attention and we are giving it just that.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that today Dr Bernard Kouchner, the head of UNMIK, the civil mission to Kosovo, said that his budget is totally bankrupt, that he is unable to pay civil servants, including those training police officers, that 102 million dollars is needed immediately, that that is less than the cost of sending one brigade to Kosovo, and that, having won the war, we are now in very grave danger of losing the peace?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course, we are aware of the difficulties with which Kosovo is faced. I believe that it is important for me to remind the House of the contribution which we have already made. As the noble Baroness will know, we have 3,500 troops in KFOR and command of the KFOR sector which covers central Kosovo. We have deployed the 60 RUC officers, whom I have just mentioned. In addition, in terms of bilateral aid, we gave over £90 million in response to the Kosovo crisis in 1999: £40 million was spent during the refugee crisis; £50 million since the conflict ended has been spent on de-mining, budgetary support for the UN mission, emergency infrastructure, power, water repair, etc; and the UK has indicated that it is prepared to spend up to £30 million this year. We have made significant contributions bilaterally. As the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House will know, we are making considerable contributions also to the EU contribution generally. We are aware that there is a need, and Europe is moving together to meet that need so that we shall, in fact, win the peace as well as the war.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness try to ensure that the expertise of the RUC officers whom she mentioned is used at the interface between one community and another, because that is an area as regards which they are very skilled? Will she seek also to have urgent investigations carried out of recent reports of trafficking in women, mostly from other eastern European countries passing through Kosovo?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand entirely the point made by the noble Lord. We are doing all that we can to address the civil issues in Kosovo. The OSCE-run police school in Kosovo is training a local police force and the students come from all ethnic backgrounds. The training is extensive and covers crime investigation, defence tactics, democratic policing, respect for the rule of law, legal affairs, police patrol duties, use of firearms and general police skills. The objective is to train and deploy police officers who understand democratic values, respect human rights, protect lives and property, and ensure delivery of effective law enforcement services within Kosovo. We are determined to help to ensure that officers on the ground have the skills to police effectively what is a very sensitive and difficult area.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I read recently of the work and contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who are on secondment to Kosovo. Bearing in mind the unfortunately great experience that they have in policing this type of situation, will the Minister agree that they should be commended for their contribution, taking into account that they are volunteers?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Those officers are making a most valuable contribution, not only in the policing that they carry out, but in the assistance that they give to others. One must appreciate the sensitivity that is needed when dealing with a situation of conflict within a tight framework and on the border of a country which has always been in difficulties on cultural issues.

Asylum Applications

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, given that in 1999 the backlog of asylum seekers, excluding dependants, rose above 100,000 for the first time, they will curtail the rights of asylum seekers to enter and remain in the United Kingdom.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this Government will continue to honour their obligation under the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees to consider all applications for asylum made in the United Kingdom or at our ports. However, we are taking tough measures to curb abuse of the asylum process. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduces fundamental changes, including measures to discourage unfounded asylum applications, while continuing to provide protection for those who need it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and acknowledge the attempt that the Government have tried to make in order to deal with this difficult matter. However, as our enlightened asylum policy has been abused over the years by economic migrants and others, causing the backlog to be doubled during the time that this Government have been in power and causing great trouble and expense to local authorities and, indeed, to the Government, has not the time come for the Government to tell the world that we shall no longer tolerate the abuse of our asylum policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree with that. That would place the United Kingdom in breach of our international obligations. Like most other European countries, we are experiencing increases in asylum applications. We are taking firm measures to deal with those and I believe that we are widely respected for having done that.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious problems for the county of Kent caused by persons arriving at Dover and claiming asylum? Bearing in mind that this is a national problem, should not the Government be doing more to assist the county of Kent?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been working closely with Kent County Council. We have been working extremely closely with the Local Government Association, to which we are indebted for the steps that it has taken to arrange for a voluntary dispersal programme in advance of our legislation coming into place. When the legislation is in place in the spring of this year, the new measures that we have introduced will enable us to carry out an orderly dispersal programme across the United Kingdom. I believe that to be in everyone's best interest.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will my noble friend provide comparable figures for all the countries of the European Union so that we can see to what degree there is a common problem? Does he agree that the suggestion made by the noble Lord in his Question will appeal very much to Herr Haider of Austria?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those figures exist. Asylum applications in the United Kingdom last year were 71,000. I can tell the noble Lord that in Germany there were 95,000; in France, 30,000; in the Netherlands, 39,000; and in Belgium, 35,000. Our problems are shared by other countries across the European Union. Last year, in Belgium there was a 63 per cent increase in asylum applicants; in Hungary, 55 per cent; in Austria, 46 per cent; and in France, 34 per cent. I hope that that is a comprehensive reply which puts in context the fact that we in the United Kingdom experience problems that other countries in the EC also experience.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a substantial part of that backlog was inherited from the previous administration; that we shall continue to honour our obligation under the UN convention on the rights of refugees and not play this numbers game; and that we should honour our obligation to admit genuine asylum seekers as part of our civilised and humanitarian values?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we should continue to honour our international obligations. I believe that it is worth placing on record that the Government inherited nothing short of a shambles. Members opposite may not like this, but in 1996 they laid plans to reduce the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that would have left us short of people to process applications. That, and problems relating to inadequate technology, placed the present Government in a difficult situation--one that we inherited.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, that in 1996 there were 29,000 applications, and 39,000 decisions were made by the authorities on asylum cases. That compares with 71,000 applications and 32,000 decisions--a drop--made in the last year. That is why the backlog has increased to over 100,000. Will the Minister tell us how many of those who were refused asylum last year have left the country?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, last year we achieved the highest number of removals--7,650. That compares with figures in the early 1990s of 1,350, 1,820 and 2,200. We inherited the problem. Staff numbers were due to reduce under the previous government. The computerised system was a shambles. We are now tackling the backlog.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom receives far fewer applications for asylum per head of population than many other European Union countries?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the figures produced by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees confirm exactly that.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the light of the fact that 7,000 people have been sent home, will the Minister confirm that in the same year the Government tried to send home 20,000 people, of whom at least 13,000 escaped and went underground? Is it not also true that every day in the past 1,000 days of this Government 50 more asylum seekers have been waiting for their cases to be heard?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been given an interesting lesson in fictional statistics.

Noble Lords: Next Question!

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I know that there is some concern about how rigorously we apply the time limit on Questions. We have allowed as much time on this Question as we did on the first. Given the interest in the fourth Question, I believe that we should move on to it.

Public Lending Right Funding

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are considering the case for increased public lending right funding which was submitted to them by the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government greatly value the public lending right scheme as a way of supporting both free access to books from libraries and the production of literature. Following the advisory committee's review of the scheme, the Government undertook a consultation exercise on the committee's principal recommendations and are now considering the case for an increase in funding as part of its spending review 2000.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging reply. I declare an interest as a recipient from the fund and a member of the Society of Authors. Will he agree that the number of author beneficiaries from the fund has almost trebled since payments began and that a majority of authors look to the fund to augment the low incomes that they derive from writing? Will he also agree that far from primarily benefiting best-selling authors, an upper limit per author is set at £6,000 a year, ensuring that the public lending right is widely spread and that £0.5 million is distributed to poorer writers?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the public lending right scheme is not only good in its design, but it is also well administered. The administration costs of carrying out the sampling procedures are low and have been declining. The problem is that, until this Government came into office and until our Comprehensive Spending Review, both the total amount of funding to the public lending right scheme and the payment to authors per book loan was static in cash terms. Our last Comprehensive Spending Review succeeded in increasing that. As I have said, we are now considering the case that my noble friend and others have made for an increase in the current spending review.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some statistics--I know that is a speciality of his--on how remuneration to authors compares with remuneration to any other section of society?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that that is an "unknowable" statistic in the sense that we do not have the power to interrogate the Inland Revenue on individual taxpayers' affairs. In general, my understanding is that authors are badly paid. Perhaps text book authors are not, but certainly authors of literature who benefit from the public lending right scheme are badly paid. The average annual payment to authors is £241, which will not make a huge difference to wealth or poverty.

Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Society of Authors. Will the Minister accept that the public lending right is precisely that, a right and not a charitable subvention from taxpayers, and that the funding in real terms is now £1.7 million below where it stood 20 years ago? While I welcome the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, can we please be assured that the level of funding will be reviewed annually with a view to preventing future injustice, particularly to poorer writers who depend on borrowings from libraries as the main source of their income?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe I have made clear already my sympathy with the case made by the Society of Authors. I accept the figures that that society has put forward. We can do better than review the figures annually. As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review we have given the figures for three years ahead. Everybody will agree that that is an improvement. This is clearly a candidate in the current spending review round, but it is one candidate among others and DCMS is one department among others.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in considering this matter, will the Government take account of the fact that in this country more books are borrowed and fewer books are bought than in many other countries? We have a higher proportion of borrowing than most countries. In those circumstances, the average income per book is probably much lower in this country than in others. Totals on this issue could be deceiving. If the Government look at the matter from the point of view of income per author, I believe that they will find that a substantial increase is needed in input in order to bring about fairness between one author and another throughout the area where the scheme operates.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that we have a higher level of loans from public libraries than do many other European countries. However, I am unsure whether we also have a lower level of book purchase. I am not convinced that that is the case. Certainly the amounts of money that we are talking about--subvention by the taxpayers of scarcely more than £5 million a year--are not large.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Bill

Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be convenient for the House to know that we expect a Northern Ireland Bill to be brought from another place later this evening. Assuming that such a Bill is received in this House, the usual channels have agreed that the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken as first business tomorrow and the remaining stages will be taken as first business on Thursday. The Bill is already published and available in the Printed Paper Office and the Public Bill Office where they will receive amendments in advance of Second Reading.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Representation of the People Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 8, Schedules 1 to 3, Clauses 9 to 12, Schedule 4, Clauses 13 to 16, Schedules 5 and 6.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill

Considered on Report.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [The Council]:

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert--
	("(1) There shall be nine bodies corporate called Regional Learning and Skills Councils.").

Lord Tope: At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Sharp and I gave a broad welcome to the Bill, which I am happy to repeat. We also said that we had some serious concerns about the Bill. This first amendment, and the other amendments grouped with it, seek to address those concerns and to suggest some improvement.
	Our principal concern was that the structure being proposed in the Bill is centralising and unnecessarily complex. Above all, there is a huge democratic deficit at the heart of the Bill. The Bill proposes the establishment of a national learning and skills council, together with 47 local learning and skills councils. The term "local" is something of a misnomer because in reality they are sub-regional rather than what I would understand to be local. It is still far from clear to me how these so-called "local" learning and skills councils will relate to the relatively new regional development agencies; how they will relate to the local education authorities in their areas; and, above all, how they will relate to the lifelong learning partnerships in those areas. I name only a few of the bodies which will continue if and when the Bill is enacted and do not mention any that will be discontinued. There are many others.
	Perhaps I may turn to a particular interest of mine, which is the relationship between the local learning and skills councils and the lifelong learning partnerships, which I continue to be unsure about. However, I am sure that when the Minister replies she will have another attempt to help me with this. I have looked at the policy statement from the DfEE on the role of learning partnerships. It states:
	"Learning Partnerships and local LSCs will be distinct but complementary. The local LSCs will cover relatively large areas and their work will need to be informed by an understanding of local labour market needs. Learning Partnerships are ideally placed to provide that understanding".
	I then look to my own local area in south London. The area of our recently created lifelong learning partnership covers the London boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Croydon, Bromley and my own borough of Sutton. That is exactly the same area as is proposed for our local learning and skills council. Why cannot the role of the two bodies be combined in one? Why are we creating this unnecessarily complex structure? I am all in favour of coterminosity, but this does seem to be rather extreme.
	Perhaps I may turn now to the democratic deficit. The Bill creates another 48 quangos. It proposes that approximately 700 people be appointed to those quangos; none of them elected, most of them not even appointed by any elected body. In total the body will be responsible for in the region of £6 billion of public money and will have considerable powers, most of which are yet to be decided by the Secretary of State. Yet there is to be no democratic accountability at all. All that comes from a party which I had always understood to be opposed to quangos; or perhaps, as I sometimes suspected, their concern was more about who was being appointed to quangos under the previous government rather then the existence of those quangos.
	I have an anxiety about democratic accountability. I want to be clear that I am not trying to thrust on an anxious public the task of going out each year and electing their local learning and skills councillor. I suspect I know what the turnout would be in any such election. The issue of accountability is important. In saying that, I compare and contrast the local authorities and the health authorities. Local authorities are accountable locally, perhaps imperfectly. We are trying to improve that. As the leader of a local authority, I have to stand up before the local population and be accountable for what my authority says and does.
	Health authorities are accountable primarily to the Secretary of State. They look to him for their accountability, their funding and all resources. I have seen so often in a local context that that lack of democratic accountability makes a big difference. I worry that we are setting up a whole new "quangocracy" which will similarly look in the wrong direction. One of the most important roles of further education is its role and purpose in the local community. We should be strengthening that and not weakening it, as I believe the Bill does.
	I now turn to the amendments and the proposals from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Perhaps I may say at the start that I recognise that the amendments are not perfect. We have to start from what we have and from where we are, not from what we want and where we would like to be. Ideally, we would like to see elected regional assemblies in England with the learning and skills councils, or whatever names they are given, firmly within that democratic structure. This is very similar to what the Bill proposes for Wales, where the members of the single council in Wales will be appointed by the Welsh Assembly. As I said, we start from where we are rather than from where we would like to be. That is why in these amendments we are proposing a simple structure of nine regional learning and skill councils, based on the government regions, as part of, and working with, each of the regional development agencies. Those regional bodies would have a clear relationship with the lifelong learning partnerships and, crucially, with local education authorities in their area. Instead of around 700 quango members we would have between 100 and 150.
	We have thought about the appointment of those members. Ideally we would like them to be appointed by an elected regional assembly. Such bodies do not yet exist. We will have to await the election of a Liberal Democrat government before we can achieve that. In the meantime we have to propose that they are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is at least somewhat democratically accountable, if only at a distance and somewhat imperfectly. Also, we say that before those appointments are made there should be full and close consultation with the RDAs, the local authorities and other interested bodies.
	Finally, Amendment No. 101 gives to the local authorities the functions and the guidance which is suggested for the local LSCs, as proposed in Clauses 20 and 21.
	In moving this amendment I recognise that our proposals are not perfect, not least because we do not yet live in a perfect world. But they do have the considerable benefit of being clear and straightforward; avoid duplication and they reduce bureaucracy. They also have some element of democratic accountability. I commend them to the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise not specifically to support the amendments, but to say to the noble Baroness that many of the arguments employed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in moving this amendment have great force. The democratic deficit in the Bill is colossal. There is a big hole. How that is filled will be a matter of debate as we go through the Bill. But I want to support very strongly that this is a top-down arrangement; it is a bureaucratic superstructure, and some of my amendments later will be bringing out those points in more detail.
	It will be interesting to hear the response of the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I should like her to think of his argument in two parts: first, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord; secondly, the fundamental points he made in moving his amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: First, it would be wrong for me to anticipate later amendments in the Committee stage of this Bill. If I were to do so we would have the same debate many times over so I shall leave those issues until later.
	I am a little sorry that we are starting this afternoon with a series of what are in effect wrecking amendments. They go to the heart of the Bill and destroy what the Government are proposing.
	The Bill represents the foundation for a framework to help us identify our needs as a nation--I emphasise "as a nation"--for learning and skills development and to create an organisation fit to ensure that those needs are met. Important work in that area is already well in hand. For example, the National Skills Task Force identified crucial areas for improvement in basic and key skills, in intermediate technical and supervisory skills and in IT. The LSC, as a single organisation with a comprehensive remit to plan and fund post-16 learning provision across the board, will take forward that challenge.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tope, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that what has been created is 48 quangos; a top-down approach. But it is extraordinary that neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness seems to be aware of the fact that we are abolishing more quangos than we are creating. We are abolishing over 70 TECs in order to create a more coherent and sensible structure for the delivery of learning skills. We are abolishing the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees to do the same. In doing that, we are saving £50 million and a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.
	It is surprising that the noble Baroness should make such an issue of quangos when it was her government that created the TECs in the first instance, created the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees; and took further education out of local education authority control. It is surprising, therefore, to hear the noble Baroness, who was a minister in that government, arguing about the democratic deficit.
	The amendments would remove the LSC's capacity to tackle those issues on a national basis. In providing for nine separate regional councils they would increase the number of NDPBs significantly, and so require the continuous re-inventing of wheels as the separate regional councils strive independently of each other--or indeed worse, in competition with each other--to identify ways of tackling common problems. That cannot make sense.
	We will turn at a later point to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others in relation to the co-ordination of the five local LSCs which will serve London. That concern is understandable, though our solution of a non-statutory co-ordinating body is vastly more appropriate. It is surprising here, then, to find that the noble Lord has no such concern about the co-ordination, or lack of it, between the nine regional NDPBs which he proposes should serve England.
	The arrangements we are proposing contain a significant regional dimension--I must emphasise that because it is important--with an influential role for RDAs and the regional skills strategies provided for in the Bill. In contrast, the noble Lord's amendments go much too far and would sweep away the significant benefits which will accrue from the more coherent national arrangements that we envisage.
	The noble Lord referred to the perfect world of the Liberal Democratic Party with elected regional assemblies which would make the appointments. We do not have elected regional assemblies so I feel that that is a little bit of Liberal Democrat wishful thinking.
	Our proposals also provide for local learning and skills councils with wide representation from outstanding local individuals with relevant expertise to ensure that government-supported learning meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at a local level. The noble Lord's alternative to those proposals for local arms of a single integrated organisation appears to be secured in Amendments Nos. 101 and 144. The noble Lord proposes that there should be provision for his nine regional NDPBs to delegate their powers to local authorities and that, if the local authorities then fail to secure the agreed learning provision, they would be open to direction from the Secretary of State.
	It is far from clear that local authorities are best placed or would wish to deliver the full range of the LSCs' functions. Quite a lot has happened over the past decade to alter the role of local authorities in this area of education. Nor is it clear which organisation would do so if regional councils decided not to use local authorities. Local authorities already have a dual role in the new arrangements that this Bill will secure as key providers of adult and community learning in particular, and as bodies which have a vital strategic role to play in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities. Our arrangements reflect that dual role. Clauses 22 and 23 provide, as part of preparing their plans, how local LSCs will set out the provision which LEAs will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available for it. We are confident that local authorities will respond positively to those arrangements and prosper in this new learning environment. That is why we are guaranteeing two years of funding levels comparable to LEAs' current level of spend, provided that they maintain this level of spend and that they draw up and implement their lifelong learning plan.
	I have already set out the Government's fundamental concerns in relation to the earlier amendments in this group. We must resist the later ones for the same reason. The noble Lord is proposing an inferior model to that being put forward by the Government, and I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, the noble Baroness referred yet again quite specifically to £50 million worth of savings. Can she say how that has been arrived at? Can she give some estimate of the cost of putting into place the new ConneXions proposals contained within the new document? Also, can she throw some light on the fact that in the Financial Memorandum the Government say that it is not yet possible to provide details of the resources that could be made available for powers to provide services for use? The Government also say that it is not yet possible to provide an accurate estimate of what may be needed for the extension of Ofsted duties and that the expenditure required for the setting up of the new adult learning inspectorate and the transformation as regards the FEFC will not rise substantially. They have also said that it is too early to provide an accurate estimate of the extent of the transitional costs of putting in place the new arrangements for the Welsh authority. How can the Government be so specific therefore about saving £50 million?

Lord Hylton: At the same time, will the Minister reply on the issue of democratic accountability which was so forcefully raised by the first two speakers?

Lord McCarthy: Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds, he will tell us what is meant by the "democratic deficit". As far as I can see from looking at the amendments--I may have got it wrong--nobody is proposing direct elections. What sort of democratic influx is there to be? For example, are we to take it from the Opposition that direct elections or elections of some kind are now the Conservative Party's policy? They never were in the past. They were all quangos. They were formed and then abolished, but they were never democratic. Can we be told in what sense they are to be democratic, which ones are to be democratic and how they are to be elected?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Can the noble Baroness also say why it is assumed that it is at the national level that the strategic over-view is required? In Germany and the United States the concept of strategy takes place at a much lower level. In Germany it is at the La nder level. Even here in the United Kingdom, Wales and Scotland have their own models. We had a national model before called the Manpower Services Commission. It was a pretty disastrous model. One reason why it was decentralised down to the TECS was to try to emulate the German model at a more local level. I do not believe that the TECS have been perfect.
	One of the problems we now have is that the Government have created a hybrid in the local learning and skills councils. They are neither at the strategic regional level, such as the regional development agencies, nor at the local executive level for local authorities to which we are looking to perform many of the functions of this council. We have here a hybrid stuck between the two. I understand what the Government want to do, but the model has been tried and it failed. I do not understand why the Government reject the regional model which implicitly we are operating in Scotland and Wales. If we tried, we could operate it in England as well.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the specific question of the democratic deficit. I and our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have amendments to key into the process local authority representation. That will go some way towards getting some local input into this matter. The other point which disturbs us concerns the top-down approach. The directions will come from the Secretary of State to the national council and then cascade down to the local councils. Then local education authorities and local authorities will have to produce plans in conformity with the instructions that come from the top. That is not a bottom-up system, but very much a top-down one without any democratic representation at all.

Baroness Blackstone: I indicated at the beginning of Committee stage this afternoon that I believed that we should try to be orderly and not anticipate amendments which have to be dealt with later on, otherwise we shall never reach the end of what is quite an ambitious day's business. I do not want to go into the issues that the noble Baroness has just raised relating to later amendments. I do not believe that it would be right at this stage to go into issues as regards ConneXions because they will be raised on a later date. Also, I do not wish to go into matters concerning the extension of Ofsted's role of inspecting FE colleges and sixth-form colleges and neither do I wish to go into issues concerning Welsh authorities.
	I have already explained to the noble Baroness on a previous occasion how the figure of £50 million was reached so I am a little puzzled as to why she is asking the same question again. That figure does not relate to the overall savings from the entire ramification of changes that are brought in as a consequence of the introduction of this Bill. However, it relates to the new structures of a national learning and skills council, along with 47 local learning and skills councils, instead of 72 TECS, the FEFC and its regional committees.
	I say once again to the noble Baroness that our assessment is that there will be savings of £50 million. They come from two main sources. First, they come from savings on operating through 47 instead of 72 bodies. Savings will also be made partly through operating more efficient systems and also through some savings on the provision of accommodation. These savings have been fairly carefully put together. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness has yet again asked for information about them.
	I now turn to the issue of the democratic deficit.

Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has explained again how the savings arise. Can she explain to us what will happen to them? Will they be put to the general benefit of further education or will they simply disappear back into the large Treasury pot?

Baroness Blackstone: An incredible improvement is anticipated over the previous situation as regards the availability of further education and a new ConneXions service for young people. The Government intend to spend more money on making sure that all young people and far more adults gain access to the learning and skills that they need. We shall be able to reinvest the savings so that they reach the learner rather than be soaked up in bureaucracy.
	I return to the issue of democratic accountability. Again, I find it very puzzling that the Conservative Opposition is raising questions on this matter when the previous government took local education authorities out of this area completely. The LSC will be accountable nationally to the Secretary of State. The local LSCs will be accountable to LSC councils which will comprise local people. I accept that they will not be elected in the normal democratic fashion as for a local authority. But we have many structures of that kind throughout our system. I believe that this is the right approach to take in this area. It builds on what the previous government did in certain respects.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, referred to the German federal system. We do not have such a system in England or the regional assemblies with which the Liberal Democrat party is so enamoured. I do not believe that it is right to claim that the TECs follow the German model because they are of quite a different construction.
	I repeat what I have already said. I believe that the appropriate way is by having a structure with a national body that attempts to identify the needs for national skills and to work out appropriate systems for funding those needs; with local arms that can meet the needs of local communities and which have some degree of flexibility in how they spend and control part of their budgets. Of course, it is absolutely vital that the local LSCs work with both the RDAs that cover their area and with the local authorities. Having said that, I very much hope that once again the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tope: When the Minister first responded she described this set of amendments as going to the heart of the Bill and I entirely agree with that. They are intended to do so. I believe that I said in my opening remarks that they address one of the principal concerns that we and many others have about these proposals. Therefore, we are agreed from that point of view.
	She also described them as wrecking amendments. I totally reject that. They are not intended to be and I do not believe that they are wrecking amendments, but a genuine attempt to try to produce a better, simpler and clearer structure which is less complex, bureaucratic and less undemocratically accountable, if I may put it in that strange way.
	The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked about the democratic deficit. I say straight away that the current policy of the Conservative Party on that subject is as much a mystery to me as it is to him. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would no more wish me to answer for the Conservative Party than I would wish to do so.
	Perhaps I may answer for my own party. When the noble Lord reads the report of the debate in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I tried to cover in my opening speech what I saw as the democratic deficit. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating that. I tried to explain that while I accept that the model we are proposing is not perfect, it is certainly better. It proposes just nine local regional and skills councils. I accept that they are not democratically elected and that they are appointed by the Secretary of State until such time as we have the regional assemblies with which we are so enamoured. However, the work below that level will be carried out by the local authorities and the lifelong learning partnerships in which local authorities play a significant role. That addresses the democratic deficit--not a great deal and not enough, but significantly better than is the case with these proposals.
	I have a very real concern that if this is to be successful, as we all hope it will be--I certainly hope so--it needs to be firmly rooted in local communities. I do not believe that the proposals in the Bill will do that, but the proposals that these amendments try to encapsulate will do it very much better. However, I shall not pursue the matter further today, although I suspect we may well return to these issues at later stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Boardman: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert--
	("( ) The Council is to make coherent provision for individual learning and workforce development which is responsive to persons receiving or intending to receive post-16 education and training and has regard to the needs of the local areas of England and Wales.").

Lord Boardman: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 103. Perhaps I may first declare an interest in that I am patron of the Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce for training and enterprise. With the benefit of its advice and that of the national council, I have tabled certain amendments. Amendment No. 2 is designed to clarify two matters: first, that the Bill is all about the education and training of the post-16s; and, secondly--although this is perhaps less clear in the Bill, it should be clear from previous debates and discussions--that the council is and will be responsive to local needs.
	The Long Title to the Bill gives no guidance on these points. That is why I felt it right for us to have the primary objectives of the legislation on the face of the Bill: training and education for the post-16s, as well as giving far greater scope for the learning and teaching to be able to meet the needs of the local community. For that reason, I hope that this provision will be accepted so that the objectives are clear on the face of the Bill. As has been said in previous debates, there is an awful feeling of a top-down approach right through the Bill. It is most important that a commitment to respond to local needs be declared on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: In the absence of any other Members of the Committee speaking to this amendment, I rise to express my support for my noble friend. I suspect that this will be a theme of today's debates because we are constantly dogged by the framework set out in the Bill. The direction comes from the top, goes on to the national council, cascades to the local skills councils and then broadens out into all kinds of other bodies, including the RDAs; in other words, local needs are determined by the top-down approach.
	Having come from a central direction, it is then left to the RDAs to be key in determining the nature of local skills needs and training. The only people who can properly define that are those at the local level. That is one of the difficulties. If the Government are not prepared to put these particular words on the face of the Bill, it seems to me that we should have something at the beginning of the legislation to give some assurance to many people who are concerned about the proper reading of "local needs" in terms of education, skills and training. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's attempt to put this provision on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In general, we on these Benches are supportive of the two amendments. Not surprisingly, given the first amendment that we proposed, we are very much in favour of the council reflecting the needs of the local community in its working. We have one slight reservation about Amendment No. 2 in the sense that it is important to recognise that education, training and skills do not necessarily start at 16. We are concerned that there should be an integration of the school curriculum into the learning and skills curriculum. However, we are broadly in favour of the spirit of the amendment.

Lord Bach: As an East-Midlander, like the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who moved the amendment, perhaps I may say how much he is respected on these issues in our part of the country. However, that does not mean to say that the Government will rush to accept his amendments. I do not think that the noble Lord will be entirely surprised by my response.
	Amendment No. 2 would give a new duty to the LSC for individual learning and workforce development, which is responsive to the needs of learners and local areas. In fact, the noble Lord includes Wales, which is perhaps in contravention of Clause 1(5). Amendment No. 103 makes a similar point in respect of the functions of local LSCs, adding the regeneration initiatives as a further responsibility.
	The LSC's main duties are already framed in terms of meeting the needs of learners. Local LSCs in England will be responsible for ensuring that provision is managed flexibly to meet the needs of their areas. They will also participate in regeneration activities. I should gently remind the noble Lord that the LSC's functions extend to England only. There will be a separate Assembly-sponsored body for Wales, so it would be inappropriate for the England council to be given responsibilities for Welsh matters.
	The Government believe that much of the substance of the noble Lord's amendment--and we openly acknowledge his good faith--would be superfluous. The LSC's main duties are already framed in terms of provision, which is,
	"suitable to the requirements of individuals".
	One of the key aspects of the overall framework that we are proposing is that local arms of the LSC will ensure that provision is planned, funded and delivered flexibly in order to meet the needs of each locality.
	Bearing in mind the contributions of the two noble Baronesses to this debate, perhaps I may point out that at the heart of the design are the 47 local councils--each with its own boards, drawn from local communities and businesses. It will fall to the local councils, working closely with all relevant partners at the local level, to identify the current and the future learning and skills priorities for individual businesses and communities. It does not sound to me very much as though this is a top-heavy arrangement.
	I turn now to the issues of workforce development and regeneration activities that the noble Lord has highlighted in his amendment. Clearly--and we can go this far--if we are to flourish and prosper, we must develop a system of support for workforce development that is responsive to the needs of the economy, local areas and particular industries and sectors. Stimulating and supporting workforce development will be an important part of the LSC's remit. That is partly why we have said that 40 per cent of the members of both the national and the local LSCs will have recent business or commercial experience, as will, most importantly, the national chair and most local chairs.
	The LSC will support workforce development in working with employers, trade unions and many others, including Investors in People UK, the Small Business Service and the University for Industry. The council's approach must be pro-active and cross-cutting. For example, it will work closely with national training organisations in developing frameworks for sector workforce development plans. In addition, at local level LSCs will prepare local workforce development plans that reflect the national framework and build on the work of local learning partnerships, and of RDAs, in identifying regional skill needs.
	As we set out in the prospectus, it is equally important that the LSC's activities are integrated with local economic development and regeneration. Local LSCs will achieve this by consulting about their plans with RDAs, local authorities, the Employment Service and local economic development partnerships. So far, so good. But all that is a different matter from giving either the national council or the local LSCs a legal duty for all workforce development or for regeneration initiatives. Employers have their own responsibilities for, and derive benefits from, workforce development. Indeed we estimate that they may already be investing some £15 billion a year in this area. Of course the noble Lord is not proposing that the Government should impose a levy on employers to fund the LSC for this activity; and that does not form part of our plans. We do not expect to provide public funding for existing private activity. Neither do we envisage the LSC becoming the only "show in town" for funding and supporting regeneration activity. For those reasons we invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. We shall bear very much in mind the points that he has made.

Lord Boardman: I thank the noble Lord for answering a number of points which had concerned me. I shall wait to see what emerges during the Committee stage. These points will be raised from time to time. I may want to return to the issue at a later stage if I am not satisfied with what emerges. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert--
	("( ) The principal objective of the Learning and Skills Council shall be--
	(a) to enhance employability and social inclusion amongst young people in the United Kingdom, and
	(b) to increase the proportion of young people in the United Kingdom who have the education and training they require to develop spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically, and to cope with the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.").

Lord Northbourne: In moving Amendment No. 3 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. I tabled Amendment No. 3 first and foremost because I believe that every business should from the beginning have a mission statement; namely, a statement of what it seeks to achieve. If you do not know where you are going, you are unlikely to get there. In this case the Government have an admirable objective. Why not state that on the face of the Bill? Surely that would help the LSCs to plan for the future; it would help later interpretation of the Bill; and it may even help to avoid challenges in court at some later date. I recognise, of course, that the wording of my amendment may need to be adapted and altered. However, I state the principle; namely, that in my view there ought to be a mission statement.
	Amendment No. 3 also has a further function; namely, it seeks to probe what the Government plan for the LSCs. I have read the White Paper, the guidance notes, the Second Reading debate and I have received a helpful letter from the noble Baroness on the Government's vision and grand plan for 16 to 19 year-olds and for lifelong learning. It is a wonderful, bold plan which is right and good. It seeks to maximise the potential of young people in our society and to draw back into the mainstream of our society those who have become alienated and excluded.
	That is an admirable vision which all of us ought to support wholeheartedly. However, I ask myself whether the structures which this Bill as drafted sets up will achieve that objective. Is the bold challenge of the Government's vision adequately reflected in the powers and objectives laid down for the LSC in this Bill? I think that it is not. The Government's vision, as I understand it, is that all young people should be sufficiently motivated, educated and trained to be able to lead full and happy lives, to contribute to the communities in which they live and to be eager for lifelong learning. That means a lot of suitably educated, motivated, trained young people.
	However, what this Bill requires the LSC to deliver is a lot of education facilities. Facilities are not the same thing as educated young people. To enter education young people--particularly those young people who have withdrawn from education for a variety of reasons--need much more than good facilities. They need a whole range of other things. The Government have set out plans for a ConneXions service. They have set out fully the kind of initiatives that are needed to get young people into education; to sustain and to support them while they are in education; to arouse their enthusiasm for learning and to keep their noses to the grindstone, as it were.
	However, I have a dreadful fear that the Government envisage two different organisations; namely, the learning and skills council to provide the facilities and someone else--under the powers granted under Clauses 99 to 108--to provide the engagement, commitment, enthusiasm, support, encouragement and all those other matters. I believe that is a recipe for disaster. It constitutes the perfect formula for "passing the buck" and for avoiding having to deliver results in terms of young people being brought in out of the cold and producing young people who are enthusiastic, properly trained and educated and raring for more. However, if one organisation is responsible for motivating those young people and another is responsible for providing services, what will happen? The organisation providing the services will complain that people are not properly motivated and the organisation providing the motivation will complain that the services are inadequate and that is why it cannot motivate people. We shall end up wasting a lot of money and not achieving the Government's chief objective.
	I drafted the three amendments in this group in such a way as to empower the learning and skills council to perform the functions that the Government have set out for the ConneXions service. I suspect that the Minister will say that that is not what the Government want. However, if that is not what the Government want, the Government are probably wrong. Education in the future will concern itself less and less with facilities and with "talk and chalk". It will concern itself with motivating people to take control of their own learning and helping them to access information and skills on the Internet, in the workplace and in the street. The role of education and motivation cannot sensibly be separated into two different organisations. Why not concentrate the main thrust of the Government's vision--including their plans with regard to ConneXions--within the role of the LSC? My Amendments Nos. 3, 61 and 62 are designed to achieve that. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: As a preview to what I shall say later, I support the amendment. The noble Lord asks in essence for general principles to be established at this early stage of the Bill with regard to the objectives of the LSCs. I accept the Government's goodwill in wanting to improve education for 16 to 19 year-olds, but the danger is that the LSCs could be financially driven and could become purely utilitarian in their emphasis. I accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with regard to general principles. My amendment proposes another general principle: to allow more local participation in this matter. The Government should have regard to the desire to establish ideals in the Bill which can guide the councils and, in case of disputes, provide a point of reference. Not to do so could result in the bodies being governed by the Treasury and by financial considerations. Therefore, as I say, I support the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Hylton: I support the group of amendments to which my noble friend has just spoken. Amendment No. 61 refers to foyers. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with foyers. She and the Committee will know that in these places not only are young people provided with a roof over their heads but also with access to education and training. These young people have the strong prospect of obtaining a job at the end of the day. We could do with having many more such establishments in this country.
	Another important aspect is that, in the nature of things, the young people using them tend to motivate each other in a particular way. Possibly older people and professionals will not be able to achieve the same results. When she replies, I invite the noble Baroness to say how she sees foyers fitting into the overall structure of the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: I welcome very much the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has drawn our attention to the need for some principled objectives to be included in the Bill, even though I realise that the Government may not wish to pursue his particular line.
	I speak from experience of an area of the country in west and south Yorkshire where certainly issues of unemployment and social exclusion--particularly in the wake of the closure of the mines--have brought about a great deal of distress. The learning skills required by people there have been enhanced a little already by what has been done locally and I hope that the situation will be improved by the Bill. However, it would be good to have that highlighted here.
	As one might expect of someone speaking from these Benches, I particularly welcome the mention of spiritual, moral and cultural development and so on--although I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, did not go into any further explanation of what he meant by those particular words. I understand that at this particular stage of the Bill it might not be appropriate for these objectives to be spelt out in that way.
	If it turns out that that is the line the Minister takes, I, for one, should be grateful for an assurance that the Government agree with the matters detailed in Amendment No. 3, and, in particular, that they accept in principle the words "spiritually" and "morally" and that they see them as being important in the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: Perhaps I may add to what my noble colleague the Bishop of Wakefield has said. For more than 15 years I have come from--and cared for--a diocese which is not suffering from the closure of the mines but is in huge post-industrial shock after the failure and the closure of the foundries. I am talking of industrial towns in the Black Country.
	If children--not only those at the post-19 level but those still at school--have seen two or three generations of parents and grandparents unemployed, the motivation issue which the amendment addresses is absolutely crucial. I wish to add one piece of experience to the issue of motivation. In quite a number of places, including Wolverhampton, we have worked with local authorities and with the Church Urban Fund for what are called "re-entry workers". These people are virtually truancy workers, who have to go and more or less bring the children from school, fishing clubs at the weekend, football clubs, small classes--wooing them back and getting to grips.
	I would add the word "personally" to "spiritually" and "morally". There must be a real personal engagement, so big is the gap and, therefore, the task in front of us. I hope that these amendments will not have to be moved and that the Government will hear the message.

The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 3 which stands in the name of my noble friend. I support the amendment because it places particular emphasis on training and education not targeted on employment, the very important point about utilitarianism made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
	Young people need to have an enthusiasm for learning and we need to equip them to adapt to an ever-changing working environment and to be keen to do so. We need to build on their enthusiasms and on what they love. Your Lordships may have heard Bill Gates talking on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme at the weekend. He went into the computer business because he was passionate about programming. He returns now, as the richest man in the world, to software development because that is his real passion. There is a lesson to be learnt there. I know that the Government acknowledge that, but it needs to be put at the forefront of the Bill as the mission of the Bill. If I understand the Government, the mission of the Bill is lifelong learning. The amendment is useful because it places particular emphasis on training and education and is not targeted on employment needs.

Baroness Blatch: I should like to add my voice to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne--not specifically the words in the amendment but the spirit behind them. The right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Lichfield and the Bishop of Wakefield, have given practical examples of how such words would set the context of how the practical delivery of education and training and links with employment would happen.
	There are of course precedents. As far as I can remember, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Acts of 1993 and, I think, of 1996, were all prefaced with what one tends to call "mission statements", which spell out the vision of the Government and set the context in which education shall be delivered.
	A worry runs through the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will not get tetchy about me referring to it as though it were a negative point. There is a feeling that the Bill is only about skills and vocational education. A large proportion of education delivery is a lifeline to some people--people who have not gained from traditional education; those who come to it late; those who study for recreational purposes; those who study as a respite from caring duties or other kinds of obligations which keep them in their homes or in particular places where they are not able to access education in the normal way--and there is also a large amount of cultural and other education. We will be tabling amendments at a later stage which will seek to persuade the Government to place some formal recognition of those kinds of education delivery on the face of the Bill. The broadening of the aims and objectives of the education delivered within that context is important.
	I echo the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. If one crawls over Hansard one will find that in years past I have used this phrase before: I think that education without a spiritual and moral dimension is no more than a clinical and arid experience. The way in which we can make real changes and have real influence on the lives of people--particularly on the lives of the kinds of people the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has spent a lifetime caring about--is to set education in a moral and spiritual context. We should also not forget the social, mental and cultural context.
	I support the input behind the amendment. Whether the Government will accept the wording, I do not know, but I hope that something will appear on the face of the Bill.

Lord Brightman: I had not intended to intervene in the consideration of the Bill. I was reminded by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of certain words which I thought might be useful to repeat on this occasion. I refer to the Family Law Bill, which came before your Lordships on 22nd February 1996. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, then the Lord Chancellor, had to consider whether or not the general principles of two portions of the Bill ought to be set out. Reading as best I can from the copy I have--unfortunately, it is not clear because the spine has interfered with the photocopying--the noble and learned Lord said:
	"My Lords, Amendment No. 1 follows our consideration in Committee of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to insert a clause setting out the general objectives of the Act. During that debate it was clear that a number of your Lordships supported the inclusion of such a provision. I indicated in general terms that I was anxious to consider the matter and therefore I am happy to bring forward this amendment, which I hope reflects the mood of the House on this important issue.
	It is important that the amendment is included ... as it sets the framework for all those who will be concerned to operate it, whether it be persons exercising functions under Parts I and II or whether it be the court making decisions under these provisions".--[Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1145.]
	My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale then said--I believe that his words have been quoted before:
	"The advantage of the statement of principles on the lines tabled by my noble and learned friend is that it gives a guideline to the interpretations of any matter in a measure which might be obscure or ambiguous. Secondly, it is a general guide to the way in which a statute should be interpreted when it comes before the courts".--[Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1146.]
	I hope that the Committee will forgive my intervention, which, I am afraid, occurred rather on the spur of the moment.

Lord Dormand of Easington: I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, a question for clarification. We all know of his great enthusiasm for the whole range of education, but it seems to me that in the two paragraphs of his amendment he seeks to cover the whole range of education. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am wondering how it will be carried out in practical terms. My question is quite simple. Can he give the Committee some indication of what kind of curriculum will deal, not only with employment, which, obviously all schools and colleges must have in mind, but will also,
	"develop spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically"?
	That is a fair range. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord comment on the curriculum.

Lord Northbourne: With the Committee's permission I shall answer the noble Lord. The quotation is, of course, taken from the Education Reform Act 1988. I always believe that the House in its entirety is more likely to accept a provision already on the statute book than one invented by me. In Amendment No. 37 I shall come to the question of what will be included alongside vocational education. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has already raised the issue as to whether the Bill is mainly or even wholly about vocational education. I know that it is not because the Minister has kindly written to me about the matter, but I believe that the point should be on the official record. My Amendment No. 37 deals with that issue, so, with the noble Lord's permission, I shall leave the answer until we reach that amendment.

Lord Tope: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I want to join the general welcome given to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising those particularly important issues and thereby giving the Minister an opportunity to inform us of the Government's thinking on the matter. We look forward to that with some anticipation.
	There is no doubt that the social inclusion agenda--if I may use that term--is an extremely important part of what we are trying to achieve. Members of the Committee have already clearly stated the reasons for that and I do not need to repeat them. I am therefore grateful for the amendments. We have had a useful little debate and I am sure that we shall receive a useful response from the Minister in a moment. However, I have some doubts as to whether, important though the point is, it should be alone the principal objective of the learning and skills council. The principal objective is rather broader than that and relates to the whole area of post-16 education. Having said that, I welcome the amendments and look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Blackstone: I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his welcome for what lies behind the Government's thinking in bringing forward the Bill. I was extremely grateful to him for his support for what he more or less described as "the boldness of our vision". I am grateful also for all the contributions to the debate, which are in a sense probing, as are the noble Lord's amendments.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, the last thing that the Government want is a Bill that is only utilitarian in its approach. All Members of the Committee will share the view that we do not want simply financially-driven provision or to confine what the Bill eventually delivers when it is enacted to narrow, utilitarian and purely vocational kinds of provision. Indeed, the Government want to develop a much less rigid distinction between vocational and non-vocational education. I shall cover that issue when we debate later amendments. I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the importance of all other forms of lifelong learning. I shall not be remotely tetchy in responding to any suggestion that that is what the Bill should be about. It is also about trying to be more socially inclusive and trying to help those young people--and, indeed, adults--who, for one reason or another, have missed out on education in the past.
	I am not absolutely sure that it is right to include in Acts of Parliament mission statements in the sense that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, meant, but it would be absolutely right for the LSC to have its own mission statement. It will need to develop that in consultation with the Government and all the external partners with which it will be working.
	I turn now to our intentions. I shall respond more specifically to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Young people of course deserve the chance to be better qualified and to have the best possible start to their working lives. Over 160,000 young people between 16 and 18--around one in 11 of the age group--are not in learning or in work. We are already tackling the shortcomings in current arrangements. We have given young people aged 16 to 18 who are in employment the right to time off for study to enable them to achieve the qualifications that many of them failed to achieve at school.
	We are trying to tackle financial barriers through increasing access funds for college-based provision and piloting education maintenance allowances to target financial support at young people who might otherwise be excluded from continuing in education after the age of 16. Through a combination of pressure and support we are trying to build on the best work carried out in schools and colleges--and, we must not forget, in work-based training--to drive up both quality and standards across all modes of learning and to retain such young people in learning.
	The LSC, including through the work of its young people's committee, will be responsible for developing a high quality system offering all young people post-16 learning opportunities appropriate to their needs. It will be responsible for delivering the national learning targets for participation and attainment by young people over the age of 16. Clause 2 delivers an entitlement to young people by placing a duty on the LSC to secure provision of education and training, broadly defined, to meet the reasonable needs of young people.
	However, we know that many young people reach the age of 16 without the proper preparation for productive further learning or without the skills employers will look for as a basis for offering them work with training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield pointed to some of those problems. We are broadening the options available at 14, including through the new GNVQ Part One. We are opening up opportunities in key stage 4 for 14-16 year olds to study in a range of learning environments, including in FE sector colleges where appropriate. We are strengthening those arrangements further through the Bill by giving the LSC a power to fund them directly. Last week, we set out in more detail our plans for a new ConneXions service to help young people from the age of 13 to stay in education and training and to help tackle the social exclusion which blights the lives of too many of our teenagers in ways that may hold them back throughout their adult lives. We shall have the opportunity to debate those provisions in Part V of the Bill in detail at a later stage.
	The objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are shared whole-heartedly by the Government. Perhaps I may also reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield in that regard. However, we do not believe that adding to the Bill the proposed amendment to Clause 1 would enhance the likelihood of our shared objectives being realised. Indeed, I fear it could serve to reduce the focus of the LSC on the important area of adult learning--we must not forget that the Bill is not just about young people but is about people learning throughout their lives--and in particular the task of re-engaging those many adults who did not succeed in learning at the conventional time as young people. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
	I now turn to the two proposed amendments to Clause 5 which follow on from the proposed amendment to Clause 1. Both would empower the learning and skills council to fund specific aspects areas of provision outside formal learning which are of particular help to the most disadvantaged young people. The first would empower the learning and skills council to fund advice and support services of the kind that the new ConneXions service will provide. It would also empower the council to fund supported accommodation for homeless young people. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned foyers. The Government recognise the valuable work that foyers can do for homeless young people. The learning and skills council will want, particularly at local level, to work with foyers in the provision of support and advice about training and educational opportunities.
	The second amendment would empower the learning and skills council to fund the kind of recreational and leisure activities for young people which are currently provided by the statutory and voluntary youth services. We recognise the enormously valuable contribution made by the statutory and voluntary youth services in re-engaging some of the most vulnerable young people in society, and we are keen that that contribution is both supported and strengthened. But we do not intend that the LSC should have responsibility for funding those services which will fall within the remit of the new ConneXions service. The resources for this service will come from pooling existing central government resources and from those currently devoted by local ConneXions partners to youth support and guidance. Of the resources that we expect existing agencies and partners to contribute, around half will come from the existing Careers Service budget.
	We must ensure that the ConneXions service is adequately funded to perform its essential task. So we are also considering what additional funding will be required as part of the Government's year 2000 spending review. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the reassurances which he seeks. I believe that there are already sufficient powers in the Bill for the LSC to fund the learning for young people which is provided in hostels, foyers and other supported accommodation. There will be scope for the ConneXions service to fund the advice and support services offered within these organisations, where appropriate. But I do not think it would be appropriate for the LSC--a body set up to fund education and training--to add funding supported housing to its portfolio. The housing elements of foyers will have to be funded from quite different sources.
	Furthermore, while the LSC will have responsibility for post-16 learning, it not our intention that it will take on responsibility for the activities provided by the statutory or voluntary youth services. The Bill places a duty on the LSC to provide for vocational, social, physical and recreational activities in connection with post-16 learning. But LEAs retain that duty in respect of secondary education, so a duty remains with LEAs in respect of all 11 to 16s and all over-16s in school sixth forms. Local education authorities also retain all the powers they need to provide for youth service activities right across the spectrum.
	Our objective is that LEAs will continue to provide youth services in collaboration with other providers of services for young people. There is no question of the LSC setting up a "youth service" or of the money which currently goes to LEAs in respect of the youth service being diverted to the LSC.
	In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that that was a full and helpful answer. However, the noble Baroness sounded slightly disparaging about having mission statements on the face of a Bill and at the beginning of a Bill. In previous Bills it has been stated clearly that the context for education "shall be" spiritual, cultural, mental, physical and so on. But the noble Baroness seemed to suggest that that should be determined locally and at local discretion. I wish to take issue with that. Given that the Government are setting up the whole remit and are setting up and establishing the framework within which people will be trained and educated, both vocationally and non-vocationally, I believe that setting the context is something the Government could do. If it is left to local discretion,
	"spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically",
	could simply be left out. I am not sure that the Government would want that. All those dimensions are universally accepted as creating a context within which education should be delivered.

Baroness Blackstone: I apologise if I was not clear enough. I did not want to be disparaging about mission statements. What I thought I said was that the LSC will develop a mission statement--by the LSC, I mean the national LSC. I agree with the noble Baroness that we could not have this matter entirely determined locally. There needs to be a coherent framework of commitment to the kind of education and training that we all want to see. That has to be owned by the national LSC. I also said that it would have to be developed in consultation with the Government--with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State--but also with all the external partners that are involved in delivering this important part of the education system.

Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her very helpful answer and to those noble Lords who intervened in the debate. As far as concerns the mission statement, I cannot say that I am entirely happy. It seems to me that a mission statement evolved by the learning and skills council, possibly under pressure from the Secretary of State, might not necessarily accord with what Parliament would wish. It seems to me that a mission statement should be passed through Parliament and approved. It also seems to me that a mission statement on the face of the Bill would help to clarify what Parliament has authorised the LSC to do. From my reading of the Bill as it stands, a great many things may be challenged as being ultra vires. However, I shall look at these matters again and, if necessary, discuss them with the noble Baroness.
	The noble Baroness made it clear that the ConneXions service is not the business of the LSC but the business of whatever happens under Clauses 99 to 108. Therefore, we shall have time to raise those issues later.
	I do not think that I shall shift the Government on the entire structure of the Bill. But I believe that they are making an appalling mistake in putting the motivation element and the provision element under separate hats. I think that there will be conflict, overlap and underlap. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Baroness Serota: In calling Amendment No. 5, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("members") to end of line 12.

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7.
	It is always difficult for government to get the size of a committee right. Therefore, I have not chosen to take issue with that aspect, although there are arguments both ways. Unwieldy committees are not in general very good, and getting the size right to do the job, consistent with efficiency and effectiveness, is often a matter of judgment.
	The Minister will see that I am concerned about the "top down" approach and the way in which the Secretary of State has a hand on almost every aspect of the Bill. It is right that he should appoint the members of the council. There is no one else who can do that--certainly not for the initial council. However, I believe that the council should be sufficiently mature to be able to determine who shall, of its number, be chairman.
	Although it is the subject of another amendment, I link the point with Clause 1(3), where the Government advocate that in appointing the committee, the Secretary of State,
	"must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person"--
	just one person--
	"who has experience relevant to the Council's functions".
	I find that extraordinary. I should have hoped that any person appointed to a national committee that is relatively small should have some skills or experience relevant to the council's functions. It seems to me extraordinary that, if 12 people are to be appointed, technically speaking 11 of those need have no experience at all if the wording of subsection (3) is to be taken literally.
	Although he will appoint the council, the Secretary of State should leave it to people who one hopes will be extremely mature at national level to elect their own chairman. If they elect their own chairman, the confidence in that chairman will be all the greater. Also, the authority enjoyed by that chairman will be the greater, because confidence in the appointment will be vested in all the other members of the council. I beg to move.

Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness three questions. I am still trying to find out what she means by "the democratic deficit". This is a kind of self-selected internal promotion system--what used to be called in Fleet Street the "sons and brothers" list. Is that a form of the democratic deficit now advocated by the Conservatives? Secondly, if a person were to be appointed in that way, would one also be allowed to sack that person? I should have thought that that would follow; or would one be allowed to set the terms and conditions? Thirdly, is this general policy in the noble Baroness's party? For example, under a future Conservative government would it apply to the chairman of the Low Pay Unit, the CAC, ACAS, or the monopolies commission, or anyone else; and if not, why not?

Baroness Blatch: I do not remember referring to "democratic deficit" in the context of this question. I am simply saying that the Secretary of State has a hand on almost every aspect of the Bill and the framework. The Secretary of State will appoint all the members. I thought it might be appropriate, as the council is to act as a corporate body, for it to elect its chairman. I make no greater or lesser case than that.

Lord Bach: If Amendment No. 5 as presently worded were to be accepted, it is difficult to see how the council would come into being at all. But that is a pure matter of detail. What the noble Baroness has made clear is the role of the Secretary of State in appointing the chairman.
	We have made clear that all these appointments to national and local councils will be made following Nolan principles. That means that we shall draw up a specification of the skills, experience and background of the individuals we want for these demanding and important posts. We shall ask all our partners and stakeholder organisations with an interest and involvement in developing the LSC to encourage their own people to apply. We shall openly advertise all the posts and we shall ensure that we have an independent assessor who will sit on all the appointment panels. The panels will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the best candidates for the post. We are delighted that the noble Baroness agrees that the Secretary of State should appoint the council. In these arrangements we shall follow the code of practice for public appointments that has been set out by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments.
	We argue that it is vital that in establishing the new learning and skills council we build a close working relationship between Ministers of the DfEE and members of the LSC. That applies in particular to the working relationship between Ministers and the chairman of the LSC. We shall want a direct working relationship on critical issues and a joint approach to the overriding mission of improving standards and participation in learning in this country.
	We believe it right in those circumstances that the chairman of the council should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We are encouraged in our belief by the fact that, since 1992, the Secretary of State has appointed not only all members of the Further Education Funding Council but also its chairman. I ask the rhetorical question: why was that all right in 1992 but is not all right now? As I say, in establishing the new LSC, a close working relationship is vital, particularly between Ministers and the chairman of the council.
	We are not attracted to the alternative suggested by the noble Baroness in Amendment No. 7 for a further reason. All the appointments to the national council are important and we shall be looking for talented people with the necessary drive, enthusiasm and commitment to fill these posts. That is particularly the case for the chairman. We shall be looking for a business person who commands national respect and who is able to make a substantial time commitment to the council. That is why we shall be advertising that post separately. There may well be people who would relish the challenge of taking on the chairmanship but who would be less attracted by being a member of the council.
	It is entirely right that the Secretary of State should make these appointments. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out where I have drawn the line; namely, at "members" rather than "Secretary of State". I have been drafting the amendments personally and do not happen to have the skills of an expert counsel. I also have a difficulty. I have tabled amendments under which other bodies would nominate people. I accept that they will be formally appointed by the Secretary of State; however, I shall want to argue strongly that some of the appointments should come through other bodies.
	Secondly, I am very disturbed at what the Minister has just said; namely, that the Secretary of State will be minded to appoint, and that there will be an advertisement for, "a businessman". The Government, and the noble Baroness in particular and her colleagues in another place, in my presence and, I believe, on the record, have said endlessly that 40 per cent of the council will be represented by business. Why, therefore, will one business appointment be advertised--quite distinct from the 40 per cent business representation on the committee?

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I obviously did not make myself clear. In regard to the position of chair or chairman, the Secretary of State will be looking for a business person who commands national respect and who is able to make the substantial time commitment to the council. That does not take away at all from the figure of 40 per cent given in relation to the new council.

Baroness Blatch: Then I am even more critical of the wording of subsection (2). It states that,
	"The Council is to consist of not less than 12 and not more than 16 members appointed by the Secretary of State, and he must appoint one of them as chairman",
	rather than stating, as the noble Lord has just said, that there will be a distinct advertisement for the kind of person whom the Secretary of State would wish to be chairman. In other words, there will be a body of 12 to 16 people, and the Secretary of State will, distinctly, advertise for someone to be the chairman who will have business experience and who will be a member of the board. That is a rather different interpretation from the wording that one sees on the page. There is a difficulty here. The business sector, which takes a close interest in the debate, will be grateful for some clarification of the distinction between the chairman, who is to be a businessman or woman (as the case may be), and the composition of the whole council.
	Our confidence has been slightly shaken by the recent appointment of the person in charge of the Dome. As far as one is aware, Nolan procedures were not followed and there was no advertisement of the position. The same Government ask us to trust them that all of these procedures will be put in place. Therefore, it is of assistance to have on record that in this instance the procedures will be followed. I am not happy with the response of the noble Lord. Perhaps I should be flattered that the noble Lord says that because the Tories did it in the past there is no reason why the present Government should not do it now. But this council, which is of a different kind, will be very influential in the policies that cascade down to local councils and local authorities. It is important that each of the 12 to 16 members of the council has confidence in the chairman. I should like the members to have the ability to make appointments. However, I rest my case until the next stage of the Bill in the hope that later this afternoon there is some clarification of the business representation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 1, line 12, after ("them") insert ("who has experience of commercial business").

Lord Wade of Chorlton: In moving this amendment, I draw to the Committee's attention that the wording I propose is a little different from what appears in the Marshalled List. The Marshalled List states that there be inserted after "them" the words
	"who has experience of commercial business",
	whereas I intend that it should read,
	"as chairman who has experience of commercial business".
	I am prompted to table this amendment because I am very much aware that the training and enterprise councils, many of which have been enormously successful in serving a good number of the purposes previously debated, have been driven by the business community. We are grateful for the amount of work that many businessmen have done in leading training and enterprise councils and the time that they have given in that regard. I welcome the Minister's recognition, when responding to the previous amendment, of the importance of business leadership. To ensure that we continue to have the support of the business community in the setting up of these new bodies, it must be clear to that sector that they are being led by people who are recognised in the industry as having sound commercial and business experience and who can bring to the councils expertise in achieving efficiency and making things happen.
	I have tabled this amendment in order to understand the Government's intentions. The Government have made some very encouraging noises, which we all appreciate, but it would be of enormous help if their exact intentions in this regard were made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: I hesitate because I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wants to speak to her amendment in this group. If so, I am content to sit down and let the noble Baroness speak.

Baroness Blatch: I had not realised that my amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 6. I support the sentiments behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade. The Government have made it clear over many weeks--it also appears in some of the documents which accompany the Bill--that at least 40 per cent of the membership of the councils will come from the business and commercial sector. Unless that is on the face of the Bill there will be no guarantee at all. There is absolutely no definition of "commercial and business sector". Members of the Committee will note that my amendment states that,
	"Not less than 40 per cent of the members shall be persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience";
	in other words, they will be truly people from the business or commercial sector.
	The Secretary of State, the noble Baroness and her honourable friend in another place have said that they want business to be in the lead and that business people understand the need for the education and training of their workforce. Today, almost everybody goes into work and therefore they must be educated and trained for work. If the Government mean what they say the business sector is fully behind the amendment. All of the responses to consultation in relation to this particular matter have stated the desire to see something firm on the face of the Bill, and I believe that there is a strong case for it. I do not see an argument against it. The Government have made it clear that they expect the figure to be 40 per cent. My amendment proposes that it should be at least 40 per cent so that it does not go below that figure, but it does not necessarily mean that it should go above it. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend, and I shall press my amendment when it comes to be considered.

Lord Tope: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for tabling this amendment. We all understand the intention behind the amendment rather than what is expressed in the Marshalled List. The noble Lord raises an important point which will enable the Minister to make clear the Government's intention. I believe that their intention is, and should be, that normally the chairman of the council is someone with experience of commercial business. I part company with the noble Lord slightly if he suggests that this should be made clear on the face of the Bill. In response to this amendment, and the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch--I shall say it again later--I have some hesitation about being so prescriptive on the face of the Bill. I entirely support the intention behind the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated, the Government have said many times--in a minute, they may repeat it--that this is their intention. I believe that to have that on record in Hansard is enough, and I do not want to see it encapsulated in the Bill for all time until there is another Act of Parliament to change it. I am wholly sympathetic to the intentions behind both amendments, provided that in due course they are withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that there is much between us in this area. The Government's intentions are absolutely clear. As the noble Baroness and her noble friend have said, we have made the position clear on a number of occasions. The only difference between us--here I entirely accept the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope--is whether this matter should be spelt out on the face of the Bill. I fully support the wish of the Committee that the business sector should play a major role in the LSC's strategic decision-making and planning. For that reason, I sought to reassure noble Lords during Second Reading that,
	"Forty per cent of LSC board members at both the national and local levels, together with the national chair and most local chairs, will have significant business or commercial experience".--[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 878.]
	The reasons for these commitments are three-fold. First, we want to build on the success of TECs in developing links between the world of learning and work. The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, referred to the TECs in this context. Secondly, we want to ensure that the LSC's £6 billion annual budget produces the skills that our economy needs. Thirdly, we want the business perspective to help create a customer-driven system. All of these are vital points and our commitments in this respect have won the support of employers and their representatives, including the CBI. But it does not follow that we should incorporate these clear commitments on the face of the Bill.
	Quite aside from the other obvious problems of definition--and here I want to turn the noble Baroness's arguments on their heads--"business", "commercial", "public sector" or "non-public sector" are not terribly easy to define in terms of legislation. We most certainly do not want to find ourselves on the slippery slope, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was implying, to a system of filling quotas of places. That would take us a very long way from our firm intention of appointing as members people who will serve the interests of the council as a whole. That is why we set out in the prospectus clear guidelines and criteria for filling all positions on the councils. I think that should be a significant reassurance. We want to encourage many people to apply and we want to appoint the best candidates. It will be important to set out in the job specification accompanying the advertising for the post of national chair the qualities that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wishes to see. We will consult the CBI in drawing up that specification. Again, I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to the noble Baroness about our intentions.
	Most of all, I simply do not believe that it is appropriate to set out in legislation the ratio of the membership of a public body. Appointments then become a matter of legal and arithmetical nicety, rather than of having the more obvious priority of finding the best people for the job in the categories set out. I hope therefore that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to the Minister for her further explanations and reassurances. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) The Council shall elect a chairman from among their number for a period not exceeding 5 years.").

Baroness Blatch: I should like, if I may, to speak to just one point on Amendment No. 7. I did not refer to the term of office. Noble Lords will have noticed that in my amendment I refer to a period not exceeding five years. It is normal to have a period of time specified for an appointment to a national body such as this. I should like to ask the Government whether they have any intention of putting a period of time upon this appointment, or will the chairman be appointed for all time until either he or she is disgraced, sent out of office or retires? I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness has quite justifiably come back to this amendment to ask the question. We are going to be dealing with time-scales for membership of the committee and, as I understand it, for the chairman a little later. I should like to respond to her on this point then, if I may.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In anticipation, I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment and wait for the explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) The Council shall appoint a Chief Executive on such terms as it determines who shall not serve as a member of any Learning and Skills Council.").

Baroness Blatch: There is an anomaly in the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State shall appoint the council and appoint a chairman from within the council. There is no reference whatsoever to how that will be done. The schedule contains no reference to that. Then, quite extraordinarily, there is a reference to the chief executive being appointed from the members of the council. This is a job. The board, or council as it is now called, would appoint a chief executive and not the Secretary of State. The chief executive would then answer to the council but not be a member of it.
	There may well be precedents. There has been a very interesting debate, which has gone on for a long time. There ought to be a separation between the chief executive and the chairman of the board and the board itself. Certainly that is what happens in the private sector. It is important that the terms and conditions should be laid down by the board or by the council; the chief executive should be answerable to them. He should be the executive arm, in other words, delivering the policies of the council, working with all the other members of staff and being the chief member of staff working for the council.
	I find that strange. Secondly, I find it strange that for the chairman there are no arrangements set out in the schedule at all. Yet on page 55 we have some fairly detailed arrangements set out for the chief executive. On the face of the Bill it is said that the chairman shall be a member of the council. There is no reference whatsoever to the chief executive being a member of the council until we turn to the schedule. It is not on the face of the Bill but it appears in the schedule that one of the council members is to be its chief executive.
	Referring to the members of the council who are to represent the body that has already been mentioned by the Minister and indeed by others, you need particular skills to be a chief executive and sometimes you need different skills to be a member of the council. I cannot understand why there is a separate schedule with a definite statement saying that one of the council's members shall be its chief executive. No arrangements, on the face of the Bill, appear in Clause 1 or a statement that says that the council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and that one of its members shall be chairman.
	My amendment deals with two main points. First, I should like an explanation as to why they are treated so differently. Secondly, I should like to know whether the Government believe there should be a distinct split between those who make policy and those who have to deliver it. Thirdly, may I ask why it is that a chief executive should be a member of the council? I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We on these Benches agree with her that it is not right that the chief executive of the council should also be a full member of the council. We also agree completely that it should be for the council itself to appoint the chief executive. The chief executive is the servant of the council, as happens, as the noble Baroness said, normally in business.

Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I could start with Amendment No. 8. We have made provision in Schedule 1 for the first appointment of chief executive to be made by the Secretary of State rather than by the council. The noble Baroness's amendments would change that position and give the responsibility to the council alone. The reason why we intend the appointment of the first chief executive to be made by the Secretary of State is one of practicality. It is very common when setting up a new body of this kind, when there is no existing council membership in place, for a chief executive to be appointed in this way. It is vital that we have an early appointment of a chief executive to take charge of the very wide range of implementation of staff appointments, ensuring that there is an effective funding and information system and that plans for the council's first operational year are drawn up in good time.
	If we wait until all the council members are appointed we will inevitably be delaying the process and we may put at risk a smooth transition, which I am sure all Members of your Lordships' Committee would wish to see, to the new arrangements. Your Lordships will perhaps be reassured to hear that we intend to identify the chair of the learning and skills council first, and then involve him or her in the appointment of the chief executive, since it is clearly of paramount importance that there should be a really good working relationship between the chair and the chief executive. The Bill already provides in Schedule 1 for all future appointments of the chief executive to be made by the council. I hope that that clarifies one of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	Turning to Amendment No. 19, this would prevent the chief executive being a member of the council. Contrary to what has been said by both noble Baronesses, I think this would diminish the status and the authority of the chief executive to that of an employee rather than creating a situation where the chief executive is fully part of, and committed to, the strategic direction that the council takes.
	I accept that there is a distinction between the role of the chairman and members of the council, who are part time and in that sense have a non-executive role, and that of the chief executive who is a full time paid official. However, that should not suggest that the chief executive is not a member of a council. In the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council the chief executives are members of those councils. It is an established practice that chief executives of NDPBs may be members of their governing councils. We believe it is right that that should be so in this instance. We must remember that the chief executive will be the accounting officer for some £6 billion of public expenditure. It is only right that he or she should be fully party to the decisions of the national council.
	The current draft of the clause and related schedule provides for a good start for the council and the establishment of an effective organisation. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am extremely disappointed with the answer. The Minister did not answer the question as to why the Secretary of State appoints one of the board as chairman but not as chief executive. As regards the appointment, why should the provision appear only in a schedule? There is no link between the schedule and the main part of the Bill. Normally schedules support clauses in the Bill; this schedule does not.
	The noble Baroness has not answered the point about the importance of the chief executive being a servant of the council and the board. He or she is responsible for carrying out the policies of the council. Therefore that seems to be a problem. There is the flimsiest defence. The Government intend to appoint early the first member of the board who shall be the chairman, and to involve the chairman in the appointment of a chief executive.
	Has the Secretary of State time on his hands? Is not the Secretary of State an extraordinarily busy person? The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to approve plans and to do this, that and the other. Every appointment to all the bodies will be approved by the Secretary of State. Those of us who watch the Secretary of State on television are impressed by his performance. But the idea that he should be engaged in the minutiae of every single appointment is extraordinary.
	The Minister referred to the accounting officer. There are endless examples of bodies--I sit as a volunteer on one--where the accounting officer does not necessarily belong to the policy-making body. It is not uncommon for the accounting officer not to be a member of the policy body. Again, the accounting officer is a servant of the organisation. So that is no argument.
	Amendment No. 8 provides that,
	"The Council shall appoint a Chief Executive on such terms as it determines who shall not serve as a member of any Learning and Skills Council".
	It is an important amendment. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 111.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) Not less than 25 per cent. of the members shall be nominated by the Local Government Association.")

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 13 to 15 and 152. Before I turn to the amendments, I should like to point out that there is a typing error in Amendment No. 107. I should have mentioned this earlier, but I have given the Minister notice of the mistake. The amendment should read:
	"The Council must elect one of its members as [Chairman] for a period not exceeding 5 years."
	The word "Chairman" should replace "Chief Executive" in the amendment. I did not want this to come as a surprise when we reach it later.
	I should also like to point out that, because I have written most of these amendments myself, if I am successful in pressing Amendment No. 13, then my noble friends and colleagues in the Chamber will not be able to press their amendments. As I shall be supporting one or two of those amendments, that may prove to be difficult. However, I should like to make again a point that I made in passing on a previous amendment; that is, that Amendment No. 13 refers to a subsection in the Bill that appears on the face of it to be absurd. It states:
	"In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person"--
	only one person--
	"who has experience relevant to the Council's functions".
	If a relatively small council--but nevertheless a national council--is to be appointed and there is in place a commitment to appoint only one person with relevant experience of the functions of the council, that will be very strange indeed. I hope that all those appointed to the council will have some experience and strengths to bring that will be relevant to the council's functions. However, in order to allow the other amendments to be considered, I shall not press the amendment. However, at a future stage I shall seek to alter the wording of the subsection, depending on whether the noble Baroness will accept amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
	In Amendment No. 10 I have argued--and I believe that I have some support in this--that the council should have serving on it representatives of the local authorities. A little earlier I think that I was teased by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for having argued about the considerable democratic deficit in the Bill and for having asked the Government to explain such a policy. Local education authorities have now lost a number of powers--they have lost powers to the organisational committees, to the educational adjudicators, on decisions on funding for sixth forms and many other local decisions. They will be able to plan only in conformity with directions from the Secretary of State. However, I feel that where local knowledge is relevant, along with maintaining existing relationships with many other local bodies, including the present training and enterprise councils, there should be some representation on this committee.
	At Second Reading the point was made that the Bill makes no reference to the national training organisations. Amendment No. 11 provides for some recognition of those organisations which make a huge contribution to education and, in particular, training in this country. The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has already been mentioned. Such organisations have made a huge contribution and have been in the forefront of arguments for proper representation in the Bill. I support those arguments very strongly.
	I have already referred to Amendment No. 13. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 will be spoken to in more detail by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as will Amendment No. 152, which seeks to provide for representation from those with,
	"experience and knowledge of the needs of disabled people".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will gather from that that there is a great deal of concern about who will be appointed to the committee. I know the difficulties of having a totally representative committee. However, there should be a way of saying that those who are referred to--disabled people, training organisations and local authorities--are important in their own right and are essential to the provision of education training and links with employment. I believe that they are important and I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.

Lord Rix: Before I speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 152, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for making clear her intentions on Amendment No. 13. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Northbourne and I would have been left as stateless persons without a clause to which to attach our amendments. Therefore, I am grateful for that clarification.
	I should like also to clear up one point. My noble friend Lord Northbourne will speak to Amendment No. 15. I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 14 and 152. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she believed that she was supporting some of these amendments. She was supposed to be doing that but, somehow, in the printing of the Marshalled List her name appears to have disappeared and in its place is that of my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth. Therefore, we have made rather a mess of that. Our intention was that there should be all-party support for these particular amendments.
	Today in particular, it has been made abundantly clear that there will be an emphasis on the representation of members of the business community on the learning and skills councils. Amendments Nos. 14 and 152 seek to ensure that the Government will take steps to make certain that the councils' membership reflects the diversity of the community and, in particular, develops expertise to meet the needs of learners with physical and sensory disabilities, as well as those with learning disabilities.
	Again, these are not novel amendments. I moved similar ones in relation to the Disability Rights Commission. Now, of course, we have the fortune to look forward to a commissioner for the learning disabled with appropriate support. However, this is a matter of importance not only on the national scale--in this case, on the national learning and skills council--but also on the local scale in respect of the network of local learning and skills councils.
	Our regional development agencies have been established with appropriate representation from local business and local government, but there is little or no representation from disabled people. At present, local learning partnerships are also being formed and a similar criticism applies. Furthermore, the Further Education Funding Council regional committees have been unimpressive in securing representation of disabled people.
	As president of Mencap, I recognise our obligation as a voluntary organisation to make sure that people with learning disabilities are aware of ways in which they can become involved in the work of public bodies, but more needs to be done in respect of all disabilities. Perhaps the Disability Rights Commission could nominate a member of the national learning and skills council and play an active part in facilitating representation on local councils. I and other Members of the Committee--those billed and those unbilled--are asking for nothing more than a commitment from the Government to convince disabled people that the proposed learning and skills councils will address disability issues with the seriousness which they merit.

Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15. Before I do so, I mention in relation to Amendment No. 14 that I hope that when we come to discuss disability we shall talk about it in the widest possible context, including the problems of mental disability and emotional disadvantage.
	In connection with Amendment No. 15, if the learning and skills councils are to be successful, they need to understand the needs of education and training in a modern society and the needs of local employers. Also, they need to understand the social and emotional problems which beset alienated and excluded young people. The noble Baroness said this afternoon that alienated and excluded young people are among the most important targets of this Bill. Often their problems arise much earlier in their lives, from experiences in the family or in local authority care. Unless one has experience of working with such young people--and I have had the privilege of doing that, as has the noble Earl, Lord Listowel--it is hard to believe that such young people are deeply vulnerable human beings, in spite of the veneer of "street cred", and one cannot begin to understand the problems that they have.
	Therefore, I have suggested that on the councils there should be at least one person with experience of youth work in general and one person with experience of vulnerable young people. I do not believe that representatives of local business and of normal education are necessarily capable of envisaging the problems which those young people have and, therefore, of providing the services that they need. My amendment seeks to ensure that there will be at least one voice on each council with experience of very disturbed young people.

Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps, at the beginning, I may clear up one matter in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She commented that Clause 1(3) states that only one person is required to have relevant experience of the council's functions. I believe that she has interpreted that rather too literally. I understand that in Acts of Parliament the general rule is that the singular includes the plural unless the context otherwise requires. Therefore, under Clause 1(3) all persons must have experience relevant to the council's functions. I am sorry about that rather technical point, but I believed that I should clear up the matter and explain why there may be a little confusion.
	I start with Amendment No. 10 in the name of the noble Baroness. I find it hard to comprehend how a party which in government did its utmost to diminish the power and status of local government should have performed such a spectacular U-turn. Of course, it would be ungracious of me not to welcome its conversion, but I fear that it has not yet found the right balance. Let me make it clear that we see a major role for local government in the new arrangements. It will be a central partner, not only in providing and securing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning, but also as an organisation which can provide vision and leadership for local communities.
	The new arrangements will offer greater influence over the whole range of post-16 provision as local LSCs will be required to consult local authorities on their plans and set out in them the post-16 learning provision which LEAs will secure. I am happy to confirm that we expect the national and local LSCs to include members with current local authority experience.
	However, it would be wrong to go further than that and to build in 25 per cent of places for local authority representatives. Then it would be difficult to ensure that there were enough places for all the other interests to be represented. In this group of amendments, we have already had requests from Members of the Committee for several other categories. However, we want employees, young people, adult learners, the voluntary sector, and so on, to have their place. It would be wrong to have members nominated by another body. We want members who are appointed on merit because of what they can offer, rather than as delegates of other organisations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment.
	An important point in Amendment No. 11 is that national training organisations have a pivotal role to play in these new arrangements. I was encouraged to hear how many noble Lords highlighted the NTO role during the Second Reading debate. The NTOs have to be at the forefront of identifying national school needs in their sector and, working with RDAs and local LSCs, they will help to ensure that local skills needs are not just identified, but also met.
	Recognising the importance of NTOs, we said in the prospectus that business members who are appointed to local LSCs will be expected to develop effective links with an appropriate NTO. That goes far further in practice than the amendment before us in ensuring that there is a truly effective role for NTOs.
	I believe it would be unhelpful to specify in the Bill a requirement along the lines of this amendment, or indeed to legislate for the more ambitious arrangements that I have described and which we intend. We have clearly said that we do not want members of councils to be delegates of other organisations. There are difficulties of definition. It is not the NTOs which need to be represented, but the interests of different industrial and commercial sectors. We shall discuss how the skills needs of sectors can best be reflected when we consider the amendment of my noble friend Lord Haskel later this evening and when I shall make what I hope will be seen as a positive suggestion in this area. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendment.
	On Amendment No. 13, we want all the appointments to the national and local councils to be made following the so-called "Nolan" principles. That means that we shall draw up a specification of the skills, experience and background of the individuals we want for these demanding and important posts. We shall ask all our partners and stakeholder organisations with an interest and involvement in developing the learning and skills council to encourage their own people to apply. We shall openly advertise all the posts and ensure that we have an independent assessor who will sit on all the appointment panels. The panels will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the best candidates for the posts.
	In all these arrangements, we shall follow the code of practice for public appointments which has been set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is surely right that the Bill should contain a provision ensuring that the Secretary of State appoints people with relevant experience. That reflects similar provisions made in respect of the FEFC in the 1992 Act or, to take a more recent example, the provisions for the constitution of the RDAs in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is also vital to the success of an organisation which must understand and seek to meet the learning needs of a wide range of individuals and employers. Once again, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw the amendment.
	Identifying and meeting the learning needs of disabled people will be part of the core business of the LSC and the CETW--not a peripheral concern. That is why the Bill requires the LSC and the CETW to have particular regard to the needs of people with disabilities and to report annually on their progress and plans in meeting the needs of disabled people. That is also why the Government have made a firm commitment in the learning and skills council prospectus that they would expect the national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
	As the functions of the LSC and the CETW clearly and explicitly include provision for disabled people, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales must--and I emphasise the word "must"--under Clauses 1 and 30 respectively, have regard to the desirability of appointing members of their respective councils who have experience relevant to disability matters. With that reassurance, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 14 and 152.
	Turning to Amendment No. 15, I want to make it clear that the new framework will support the severely disadvantaged and socially excluded young people. The new arrangements provide for the LSC to work with partners at national and local level in creative ways to stimulate interest in learning and create opportunity and aspiration, especially among those who do not consider themselves to be learners. As we made clear in the prospectus, that will mean ensuring that learning should be accessible to all individuals and sections of the community and above all to the socially disadvantaged. I am happy to confirm that we expect the national and local LSCs to include at least one member with relevant knowledge and understanding of the needs of those severely disadvantaged or socially disadvantaged members.
	Furthermore, at national level the head of the National ConneXions Service Unit will be invited to attend all meetings of the national council and of its Young People's Learning Committee. At local level the ConneXions Partnership will be invited to attend each meeting of the local councils of the LSC. So at every meeting of every LSC someone will be present with an understanding of the needs of socially excluded young people and experience of delivering support services to them.
	It would be wrong to go further than that and guarantee at least one place for each group as members of the national council. That would make it difficult to resist calls from other groups or bodies and would be counter to the Government's wish that all council members are appointed on merit because of what they can offer rather than as delegates of other organisations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Blatch: As I moved the first amendment in this group, I shall respond first. When I undertook the job now carried out by the Minister I suffered great frustration in relation to counsel's opinion. Almost daily I argued with the pedantic nature of the advice that I received from counsel. On one occasion, having received in the Chamber the most incredibly persuasive and I thought common-sense argument against me, I returned to the department and said, "I will not go into the Chamber once more defending the indefensible". I asked whether I could meet counsel. A great shudder went through the room and there was a great intake of breath. I was told that nobody meets counsel; counsel does not talk to Ministers. I insisted that I met counsel. I decided to hold a meeting in which I would sit as the honest broker and counsel would sit face-to-face with my noble friend Lord Renton, who with Members from other Benches had led the fray in the Chamber, and that they would battle it out. I watched and after about 10 minutes counsel conceded the argument.
	I find this matter extraordinary on two counts. First, I believe that the wording is clumsy and that the only intellectually valid argument advanced by counsel--I do not blame the Minister--is that it has been done this way for a century so there is no reason to change it. Secondly, it is extraordinary that it should be necessary for any government to say, in appointing members to a national body which has a specific remit set out in law, that they will appoint the kind of members who will do a good job. I would have thought that that would go without saying.
	I do not blame the Minister, but I believe that across this House we should insist that counsel must not be so pedantic and should concentrate energy and efforts on parts of the drafting of legislation that have much more substance about them.
	The Minister chided me because of my apparently new-found interest in local government. I come from local government, I have a great affection for it and some experience of it. The removal or reforming of powers was carried out in the interests of devolving power downwards and not upwards, such as devolution to schools and autonomy for further education colleges. Such moves were welcomed by most councils in the end and they were certainly welcomed by the schools and colleges.
	Councils are now being second-guessed by organisation committees and second-guessed, sometimes wrongly, by adjudicators. They will lose some of their funding powers under this Bill and they certainly will lose their power to determine matters locally. As set out in this Bill, whatever they do will have to conform with the directions of the Secretary of State as sent down through the national and local schools councils. I defend my right, first, to be a supporter of local government and, secondly, to say that over time its role does change, but I think that it should not change in keeping local the determination for decisions that impact on local people. I shall not be pressing my Amendment No. 10.
	I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will accept that Amendment No. 152, which bears his name--and I confirm on the record that I supported his amendments--impacts on Wales. My noble friend Lord Roberts will be dealing with all Welsh aspects of the Bill. When it comes to Amendment No. 152, he will speak to it in the context of it applying to Wales. I believe that he will support it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: At the beginning of the afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was particularly cross with me, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because we started off on what appeared to be a negative note. Indeed, it was either the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who was accused of wrecking the Bill. Like them, I can see how that interpretation is technically drawn in relation to the amendments that we are discussing today. The argument is not about whether there needs to be more coherence for 16-plus education. There is no disagreement across the whole of the Chamber about that. The argument is about means to ends. From what the noble Baroness has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has done, I believe that it could be done better, more effectively and certainly at less cost.
	My view is that there seems to be almost a fetish on the part of government that anything invented by the previous government must be changed, even if they agree it in principle, rather as they tried to agree with grant-maintained schools in principle. But grant-maintained schools had to go. They had to be redefined. Some changes had to be made. Sadly, the changes were in terms of losing autonomy. They knew that deep down it had in fact been a good idea to give schools more control and more operational autonomy.
	Much the same is happening with training and enterprise councils. At some stage, the noble Baroness said that there were good, bad and indifferent training and enterprise councils. Earlier this afternoon, they were referred to as quangos. They are not quangos. They are incorporated companies, and they are separate. Hence, there is no clause in the Bill to dissolve them. They will not be dissolved; they simply will not receive contracts from the DfEE. They will not wither on the vine, but will go in some haste. It is not clear from the details in the Bill exactly how that transition will occur and what some of the practical manifestations of it will be.
	There are two fairly important points when it comes to management of change. One is that it can be difficult. It certainly can be painful for the people who are involved and who are the losers. Certainly many members of staff will not be reappointed. Some people who have given very good service as voluntary members will cease to be used. The other side of management of change--and this has been my experience in local and in national government--is that management of change is expensive. To be done properly, it is costly. It is conventional for government, and indeed local government, never properly to fund management of change. Often, with hindsight, the reason why changes do not happen in quite the way that Ministers want them to happen has more to do with the fact that the changes were implemented on a shoestring.
	Clause 1 is a bureaucratic monster. It is far removed from the aim of the Bill, which is to introduce more coherence and a more locally-tailored service to meet the skills and educational needs of communities and of business and commerce. A network is already in place. There is an argument for revisiting TECs--training and enterprise councils--looking at their composition, powers and modus operandi, and for introducing some reform so that they can deliver what the Government want.
	The noble Baroness earlier criticised the fact that there are too many TECs and said that they are going to be reduced in number. I shall come back to the financial aspect of that in a moment. If that is the case, looking at their coterminosity with other bodies with which they have to work and at whether or not the areas they cover are right, the relationship between them, local business, local commerce and local authorities could be built upon in a practical and cost-effective way.
	I was disturbed when earlier today the noble Baroness appeared to imply that part of the £50 million would in fact be saved by reducing the 72 councils down to 47. It is of course true that they may operate in fewer buildings. Parkinson's law being what it is, I suspect that those buildings will still stay within the public sector. But they will use fewer buildings. Is the intention to use fewer staff? And is the intention to have less money? In other words, is the money that is presently available to training and enterprise councils to be reduced in order to provide for the local skills councils and the national skills council? If so, what is the equation and what is the basis on which that calculation is to be made?

Lord Haskel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wanted to remind her that we are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Will she tell us why she thinks that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: I have given a few reasons already-- management of change; costly bureaucracy; this is not the way to achieve the ends; that the argument is about means to ends and not about wrecking the Bill. How many other arguments would the noble Lord like me to introduce? I introduced funding and the cost of management of change. I have even been positive and suggested that there is a way of taking the existing network and building upon it. I have talked about the possibility of revisiting the training and enterprise councils and looking at their coterminosity with the bodies with which they work. I could go on.
	In the past few minutes I have mentioned all those points. All of them are relevant as to whether Clause 1 is the best way forward or whether there are alternatives which would work in an effective way. This is a bad way to go forward. It is a top-down system. It is going to be expensive. It is going to be remote from the people it serves. It is going to require even more co-ordinating bodies than presently exist. The coterminosity makes some sense in some parts of the country, but not a great deal in others. That has not been addressed.
	The Government have a propensity for not accepting any amendments--I say that having watched the television programme on Sunday evening--even minor amendments, when almost everyone's view, both in the back room and in counsel's opinion, is that the Bill could be changed. I am not hopeful that we will get change in this respect. I believe that this clause should not stand part of the Bill in the interests of giving us an opportunity to find a better way to achieve the aim of more coherence of post-16 education.

Baroness Blackstone: We have heard a good deal from the noble Baroness and from the Benches opposite, through their amendments to this clause, about their concerns over the membership and status of the council. But they miss the basic point that there is wide recognition among learners, providers and employers that the current system of post-16 education and training no longer meets the country's needs in the 21st century.
	This is nothing to do with a government with a fetish for change. This is a government listening to the criticisms of many people--whether students, employers or providers--of the current system. We would be failing in our duty if we did not listen. Respondents to our Green and White Papers were clear that we have to do away with the incoherence and duplication of different funding, planning and delivery systems. We have to raise standards, increase and widen participation and tackle the skills deficit. That is what the new learning and skills council will achieve.
	I was not cross with the noble Lord, Lord Tope--I see he is not in his place--for introducing his amendments; I was just a little disappointed that we began our proceedings today with what I feel were close to being wrecking amendments. However, none of the alternatives proposed by the Benches opposite offers a coherent solution. The regional structures advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rob us of the opportunity to meet national challenges with national solutions. Large employers, national public and voluntary organisations all welcome the prospect of being able to relate to the LSC at a single national level. They know that they will be able to avoid the duplication and wasted effort which many face now when dealing with 72 separate TECs. The noble Baroness was correct in her definition of them, but they all have different systems and different approaches. We are constantly being told that that makes it difficult when dealing with them.
	The proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to distance the Secretary of State from appointments and essential links with the LSC serve only to limit the elements of control and scrutiny which Parliament should properly expect government to exert over an NDPB. I say again in relation to the proposals specifying the composition of the council on the face of the legislation that, although the Government are committed to the inclusive nature of the council under the business leadership that we set out in the LSC prospectus, we do not accept that legislation should or needs to specify quotas. That of course applies to local government representation.
	I entirely accept what the noble Baroness was saying earlier about her long record in local government. When I was being critical in suggesting that there was a U-turn, I did not mean it personally. It is perhaps the case that she not only fought parliamentary counsel--I wish I had been a fly on the wall at that meeting--but also fought her colleagues in reducing the role of local government in this whole area. That is certainly what her government did.
	The learning and skills council represents a new opportunity to tackle more effectively the learning and skills deficits that have for so long blighted economic performance and the development of an inclusive society. Clause 1 is central to the Bill and I urge the Committee to agree that it should stand part of the Bill and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her objection.

Baroness Blatch: That was again an interesting answer. The noble Baroness said that there needs to be more coherence. I admitted that from the outset. There is no argument between our Front Benches in relation to coming together in the interests of having more coherence in post-16 education.
	The criticism of the system is interesting. I have spoken to a large number of people in the build up to this Bill. Almost always people said that they did not like the way the Government decided to resolve this issue, but that is a lost argument; that has now gone. People are pragmatic. They realise that they must get on with their lives. They accept, at the end of the day, that they have to live with the government of the day. Business people in particular have to get on. They have neither the time nor the resources to engage in a long war of attrition about these matters.
	There is huge support for coherence. Duplication of funding is also an issue. The problem of some people being paid twice can certainly be resolved. We are worried about the duplication of funding because we feel that what is behind it is a kind of averaging downwards. At Second Reading the Minister referred to averaging upwards and, in the interests of Pepper v Hart, we shall be watching that carefully. Indeed, in a letter to me the noble Baroness put on paper that there will be no averaging downwards. But it begs the question that where there is a policy intention that equal funding for equal courses shall be pursued--similar courses are at present being funded differently--will that be levelled upwards or downwards?
	We are also concerned about the funding mechanisms which will change; for example, the circuitous method of top-slicing sixth form money at national level; giving it to the national councils who will then give it to the 47 local councils who will then give it to the hundreds of LEAs who will then give it to the schools. First, that will be a costly circuitous route; and, secondly, each individual school wants some guarantee that it will not lose out in real terms. Or will there be an amortising across the schools? So real practical problems arise in relation to the system underpinned by Clause 1.
	Finally, the Minister refers to training and enterprise councils as being different; some being effective and some not so effective; some having different systems and some different approaches. The idea that 47 local skills councils will be uniformly good and uniformly effective is a nonsense. Human beings are what they are. Some will be led by good people and have exceptional boards, and some will not. It is a matter of fact that when there are so many councils, there will in the end be the good, the bad and the indifferent.
	I feel strongly that there are better ways of doing this. There are ways of building on the strength of what works now and I wish to press for the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 62.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 1 [Learning and Skills Council for England]:
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 55, line 23, at end insert ("for one further term only").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is a minor amendment. Paragraph 2(2) of the schedule states that,
	"On ceasing to be a member a person is eligible for re-appointment".
	The purpose of this amendment is to place a limit on the number of times re-appointment can take place. We believe that in any organisation it is healthy to have some renewal of membership. There is a tendency sometimes for organisations to become self-perpetuating oligarchies. Therefore, we believe it is a good idea to have on the face of the Bill a limitation on the number of times that a person may be eligible for re-appointment. On that basis, we suggest that a person should be eligible for re-appointment only for one term. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment so quickly. But I am confused. As I understand the amendment, it refers to "one further term", which suggests two terms in all. I understand that I am right in saying that.
	The Government are fully in agreement with the general rule set out in the code of practice for public appointments and by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, that members and chairs of the LSC should generally serve for a maximum of two terms. In making the appointments, we shall follow those guidelines. But they allow for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. It may be that a member or chairman of the LSC makes such a valuable contribution that it would be right to re-appoint that person for a third term. I stress "exceptional circumstances". Therefore, we do not believe it appropriate to write into the Bill an absolute bar against serving more than two terms in every case. In the light of the assurance I gave that the Government will follow the guidance in these matters, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I put a question to the Minister before he sits down. The noble Lord appears to be accepting the thrust behind the amendment; namely, that there should be a defined period of time beyond which someone should not be appointed. I believe it is possible to deal with this in the Bill. The proviso would not apply to the chief executive. I put him in a different bracket, as he will be the number one employee of the council. However, it would apply to the chairman and the members of the council. Would it not be possible to insert the words,
	"shall not normally serve more than one further term",
	so that it is presumed in favour of not serving one more term? I wonder whether the noble Lord is sufficiently open minded to consider not only the points made by the noble Baroness but also my suggestion that some provision should be placed on the face of the Bill to ensure that people do not believe that there is a sort of unwritten rule that they could serve two, three, four or even more terms.

Lord Bach: I hope that I am sufficiently open minded to listen carefully to all the suggestions made by the Committee. However, tempting though that offer is, I must reject it. I repeat: we intend to follow the code of practice for public appointments. It is publicly stated and publicly known. Given the fact that we are likely to do so, it would be wrong to put anything like the provision suggested by the noble Baroness on the face of the Bill. I take this opportunity to return to the point about the chairman's appointment. I should make it clear that we see the first appointment being for a term of between three and five years.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have to say that I am most disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to putting this provision on the face of the Bill. Given that it is in the code of practice for public appointments, it seems most appropriate for it to be on the face of the Bill. However, given the Minister's insistence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 56, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. This amendment proposes to remove paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 which relates to the appointment of the chief executive. I feel most strongly about this matter. The first line in the schedule reads:
	"One of the Council's members is to be its chief executive".
	If it is good enough for that line to appear on the face of the Bill in Clause 1, as it relates to the chairman, it seems to me that it should also appear in the clause as a definitive statement that a council member is to be chief executive. The Minister will know that I think that that is wrong. I believe that there should be a proper separation between the chief executive and the policy makers. Therefore, I do not accept or support the arrangements set out in Schedule 1(1).
	Amendment No. 22, which proposes to leave out subparagraphs (6) to (8), has been tabled for the sake of clarification. I seek some explanation in this respect. These paragraphs are very difficult to read. For example, subparagraph (6) says:
	"The Secretary of State may remove a disability",
	but what is a "disability"? We need a definition of that word. Moreover, the powers referred to in subparagraph (7) include those to,
	"remove (either indefinitely or for any period) a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State".
	Again, what does that mean? What are the "interests" and "matters" referred to? What description can the Minister offer us in that respect?
	Finally, in subparagraph (8) we read:
	"Nothing in this paragraph precludes any member from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or in voting on, any question whether an application should be made to the Secretary of State for the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (6)",
	which I simply do not understand. As I said, the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification.
	Amendment No. 23 refers to paragraph 9(1) of the schedule and deals with something that I battled for in the past. However, I lost that battle and am now trying to see whether I can win it from this side of the Chamber. I do not believe that we should have interference or intervention by the Secretary of State, or by a person acting in his name, at these meetings. The council should at least have some say in whether it has a representative of the Secretary of State attending and taking part in deliberations at its meetings.
	If the Government are really arguing that the Secretary of State will not have a handle on absolutely every aspect of this Bill, this is a very good area to demonstrate that fact. It seems to me that the council has been established to carry out a task for which it has a remit, and it must do that job within the framework of the law. Therefore, if the council would like a representative of the Secretary of State to be present at its meetings and take part in the discussions, that is fine; but it should be a matter for the council. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: Amendment No. 21 would affect LFC staff, who will be public servants working for a non-departmental public body. While the detailed terms and conditions of their employment will be a matter for the LSC to determine, it is surely right that the Government should be able to ensure that those terms and conditions are in line with public sector policies. This is well established for other NDPBs and replicates provisions made in respect of the Further Education Funding Council's terms and conditions. I give way.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord. I should point out that the amendment does not refer to members of staff. Paragraph 1 is headed "Chief Executive" and only refers to him. There is no reference to the appointed members of staff.

Lord Bach: I believe I know what has happened here. Amendment No. 21 refers to line 7 on page 56, which falls under the heading of "Staff". Having heard the noble Baroness's opening remarks, I suspect that she meant to refer to line 7 on page 55. Therefore, although I am properly addressing the amendment on the Marshalled List, it is not the one that the noble Baroness intended to move. Perhaps I may suggest to her that it would be sensible to re-table the amendment on Report so that it could be dealt with at that stage.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. There has either been a typographical glitch, or I am responsible for making a mistake. In fact, there should be two amendments: one should refer to subparagraph (3) on page 56, while the other should refer to removing subparagraph (1) on page 55. I apologise for any confusion that has arisen. I shall return to both amendments.

Lord Bach: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, as the amendments deal with the same matter she could withdraw these amendments today and re-table them on Report. That would clarify the situation.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 1, line 21, after first ("education") insert ("and training").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, 48 and 49. All these amendments relate to the inclusion of the words "education and training" together, rather than separately. Our reason for so doing is to stress the fact that education should be holistic for those who are under 16 as well as for those who are over 16. By separating the two and creating a separate world for both education and training, we are breaking the holistic nature of the two concepts, putting them into separate compartments and treating them as such. We feel that the two need to be considered together.
	Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that in the modern world in which we live people need to have largely transferable skills. Our young people need a good, solid base of education and of skills. The latter are often referred to as the training element of education. People need to acquire high levels of capability and competence in skills to enable them to be transferable in the modern world where people cannot expect to hold a job for life but have to move from job to job and retrain. They need to be able to call on the solid base that they have acquired. As I say, this solid base incorporates both education and training. Therefore it is extremely important that both aspects should be considered together. That is the essence of our amendments in this group.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. Clause 3(4)(c) states that,
	"training includes vocational, social, physical and recreational training".
	Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 seek to amend that phrase to,
	"education and training includes vocational, social, physical and recreational education and training".
	It is important to recognise that as regards many forms of adult education in particular it is not a question of training or of acquiring vocational skills but rather of broadening the mind. We would like to see that concept included on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 33 is in many senses the odd one out in this grouping. It seeks to amend Clause 2(3) which is concerned with the facilities that the council must provide. We believe that the provisions in this subsection are static in nature. In this modern age it is important to recognise that facilities become out of date. Anyone who now has a 486 computer will recognise how difficult it is to run up-to-date software on it. One can get by for a while but one has to be able to interchange information with others and that becomes increasingly difficult. These changes take place quickly. As I say, it is important that the facilities that are provided for our young people should be kept up to date. For that reason we have tabled Amendment No. 33 which states,
	"take account of technological development".
	I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: I speak to Amendment No. 37 which is grouped with the amendment that we are discussing. This is simply a probing amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will make clear what meaning the Government attribute to the words "education", "training" and "leisure-time occupation". The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke of broadening the mind. I wonder whether cultural education, for example, would be included in the education that the Government envisage. I should like to see education defined in the same way as in the education Act and defined using the phraseology that I included in my Amendment No. 3--the wording of which is taken from the 1988 Act.
	Will the kind of education and training that the learning and skills council will be charged with delivering include that wider kind of personal development which is sometimes described as "life skills education"? For example, does it include personal, social and health education and citizenship education, if those have not been adequately delivered to and absorbed by a 16 year-old who may have been out of school for a number of years? I am particularly concerned about education for relationships and parenthood because young people who have missed school and who have disturbed family backgrounds are not likely to have received any guidance whatever with regard to the responsibilities of parenthood. I believe this issue to be of the utmost importance in our society today. I refer to both the responsibilities and the joys of parenthood.
	As regards leisure-time activities, does the learning and skills council have the power to fund personal, social and emotional development through, for example, sport, outdoor leisure and adventure activities and challenges such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme? Would the council have the power to support and fund more ambitious projects under Operation Raleigh or the Sail Training Association which can be so valuable in terms of giving young people more confidence in themselves? Finally, would the council have the power to provide supervised accommodation and support for young people while they are pursuing this kind of education?

Baroness Blatch: I believe that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, could have been satisfied if the relevant wording had been taken from the 1988 Act and included in the Bill. That would constitute a statement to the effect that education is multi-dimensional and involves spiritual, moral, mental, social and cultural dimensions. The inclusion of that wording would have reassured all those people who consider that the Bill is narrowly drawn and ignores those other aspects of education that have been mentioned. I support the thrust of what has been said in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, presented the Government with a simple solution to this problem.

Lord Bach: We recognise and accept that our present arrangements for post-16 education and training are too fragmented and incoherent, and for far too many people are not working as well as they should. The most vulnerable and disadvantaged sections of our community are too often excluded from participation in education and training, a cycle that all too often is perpetuated from generation to generation.
	Members of the Committee quite rightly make the point, in Amendments Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 30, that the proposed new arrangements should not simply perpetuate the artificial distinctions and separate systems of the past. The Government appreciate the concern that the form in which the duties of the council are expressed may imply a continuation of such divisions. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the Committee that this is not so. Indeed, we would be concerned if there were any implication that the needs of individual learners had to be pigeonholed into convenient categories of education or training, rather than provision that responded to what learners actually require across the whole spectrum of needs. Nor is this the intention of the clause, which sets out in a comprehensive fashion the duties of the council in respect of the 16 to 19 age group. It ensures that, whatever their education or training needs, they will have an entitlement to receive provision that meets their needs. I give the noble Baroness that assurance. I hope that in the light of that assurance she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
	Turning to Amendment No. 33--the amendment relating to technological development--I should point out that the Government have been paying great attention to ensuring that the rapid pace of technological development has not been leaving our schools and colleges behind. Of particular relevance to post-16 education and training has been the initiative to establish the national learning network, the planned IT infrastructure supported by £74 million of new government funding resulting from our Comprehensive Spending Review. This will be centrally procured on behalf of the further education sector through the Joint Information Systems Committee by UKERNA, the United Kingdom Education and Research Networking Association. The network is to be established by March 2001 and will connect all FE colleges and higher education institutions with links to the national grid for learning.
	This will provide the essential infrastructure so that our major providers will have a national learning network linking further with higher education, improved access to IT facilities for both students and staff, including access to modern learning materials. This will also support the sector's capacity to play a leading role in the University for Industry.
	All this has been achieved within the existing framework. We expect this work to continue and to develop under the LSC without the need for an express legal duty. The key factor is that the LSC must be led by the needs of the learners who access the provision the council supports. This will encompass a wide range of facilities, not least including those required for agricultural, artistic, scientific and cultural needs. We believe that it would be wrong to single out for special attention and give priority to one set of facilities, important though such facilities may be, and give them priority over others. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw that amendment.
	Turning next to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I hope that he will forgive me if I first make what may seem to him to be a technical point more than anything else. Much of the Education Reform Act 1988 has been replaced and its main provisions are now concerned with further and higher education. As of course he knows, matters relating to secondary education are now found in a consolidated form in the Education Act 1996. We are therefore slightly wary that his amendment could be a wrecking amendment--although it is not intended to be--because it would impact upon the learning and skills council's ability to support secondary educational provision made by schools, particularly in sixth forms.

Lord Northbourne: I thank the noble Lord. I did make clear that these are only probing amendments.

Lord Bach: I understand that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me.
	Turning to the other components of the amendment, as the noble Lord knows, Clause 2(4)(c) already ensures that "training" includes social, physical and recreational training. But in addition it includes vocational training, which we think is an important element. We believe that our formulation is good.
	"Leisure time" occupation is a recognised definition found in Section 2(6) of the Education Act 1996. Although it is phrased in different terms, I can assure the noble Lord that the kind of activities described by him are encompassed within the meaning of post-16 education and training. I should also make clear that although the scope of the council's responsibilities extend to England only, if a course required related activities such as a field trip outside England, the Bill does not prevent that.
	I shall use a fairly broad approach to try to answer the noble Lord's more detailed questions. He mentioned various kinds of education--cultural education--and he then referred to what he quite rightly said are known as "life skills". In a broad sense, the Bill and the LSCs are intended to cover those kinds of education as well.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 40. The concerns creating artificial distinctions--

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not refer to Amendment No. 40. It is by way of a probing amendment. My specific concern--and, looking again at the amendment, it perhaps refers more to paragraph (d) than to paragraph (c)--relates to small companies. Given that education and training will be delivered by many providers, including the workplace, and given that some very small companies take on trainees, I am anxious for confirmation from the Minister that there will not be a requirement on employers to provide leisure and recreational facilities which are entirely beyond their means. Perhaps he can confirm that there will be a way of, not circumventing what is set out in the clause, but of circumventing the practicalities so that what is set out can be met by other means. I have included colleges of education in the amendment so that if they are provided with football facilities, games facilities or whatever, a way is found to ensure that the burden does not fall on a very small employer.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of her amendment. The amendment is about creating artificial distinctions. On the face of it, there is no good reason why those who are educated in a college should be able to take part in broad educational activities while those who are educated in other places cannot. We recognise the importance of the further education sector. It will be receiving a large amount of money from public funding each year and it will have the major responsibility for the delivery of post-16 education and training.
	I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend by her amendment--which she said is a probing amendment--not to take into account the adult education work carried out by local education authorities and the voluntary sector. That is essential work which complements the work of the further education colleges. I cannot think it is the intention of the noble Baroness that they should be excluded from the council's remit. As for the assurance that she requires, I can give her that assurance. Perhaps on that basis she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	I turn now to deal with Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. We understand the concerns of the noble Baroness about the wording. The education and training to be secured by the council should not be construed in a narrow way. Vocational, social, physical and recreational education are all encompassed within the meaning of "education". I appreciate why the noble Baroness, upon reading subsection (4) of Clause 3, might come to the conclusion that they are not. What appears on the page is an express provision for vocational, social, physical and recreational training, but no equivalent in respect of education. That is her point. It is a reflection of the way in which education and training legislation has developed over the years, and which this Bill, thankfully, at last brings together. As the noble Baroness knows, education law fills four weighty volumes, no doubt at enormous expense. The statutory provisions which enable training arrangements are very much less detailed.
	The meaning of "education" in this subsection should be interpreted to include both secondary education made in sixth forms and further education, definitions of which are contained in Section 2 of the Education Act 1996. These have the broad meanings sought by noble Lords and include vocational, social, physical and recreational aspects. But there is no equivalent definition of "training". To ensure that there is no doubt that the council must secure training in its broadest meaning, subsection (4) includes the reference to vocational, social, physical and recreational training. The noble Baroness has raised a good point. I hope that she will accept that her amendment is unnecessary for the reasons given.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his full replies on the various points I raised. The Minister says that the spirit of our proceedings is to be holistic, to include education and training; and that we do not want to return to the bad old days of fragmentation. I find it somewhat disappointing, therefore, that it is not on the face of the Bill. If the Government want to turn over a new leaf and move forward in those new ways, it is disappointing that they cannot find the ability to write that into the Bill and to get away from the twofold definition. I accept the Government's good intentions on the matter, but there may in future be governments who are perhaps not so well-intentioned. It is therefore good to have such provisions on the face of the Bill and that is why we are asking for them.
	I shall for the moment withdraw my amendment, but we shall consider the issue again and perhaps return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("or of persons who are above the compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and who did not acquire a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attained the age of 16").

Baroness Blatch: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There is a difficulty here. I should like to flag up the amendment at this stage, but I shall certainly not be pressing it. There is a basic concern that there is a split in the Bill between those up to the age of 19 and those beyond the age of 19. For those up to the age of 19, "proper" facilities must be provided; for those over the age of 19, "reasonable" facilities need to be provided.
	The distinctions are subtle and important. However, education and training are not like that. There are young people studying for A-levels who may become 19 or 20 while they are doing so. Many young people are in the middle of a course at the age of 19. They may have completed one, two or more years of a course. They may be in one establishment straddling the age groups of up to 19 and 19-plus. There is a real difficulty in the way in which the Bill has an absolutely definitive cut-off at 19. Some would ask why the line is there at all. We could argue about the difference between the words "proper" and "reasonable" unless the Government have a specific reason for the distinction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is more flexible in his suggestion. His amendment specifies, "or older", giving the Secretary of State a discretion which may be flexible. I am saying more definitively that the cut-off age should be 25. Young people may be mid-stream in their courses when they pass the age of 19. There will be others who, for one reason or another--which may be health reasons--simply have not got out of basic statutory education what they should have done and for some reason leave school without qualifications. We all know that there is a disturbing number of young people still leaving school without basic qualifications. Their needs continue to be of concern.
	The Government have laid great stress on the importance of finding a way to encourage such people back into education. That policy is supported by Members on all sides of the Committee. Too many young people are simply wasted to society, to themselves and to their families. If ways can be found to bring them into the fold, that is to be supported.
	If there is to be some difference between the emphasis given to whether "proper" or "reasonable" provision is made for students of a certain age, I believe that the stipulation of 25 covers school-leavers who are lost to the system and are found perhaps at the age of 20 or 21 and those who, perhaps for health reasons, find themselves grappling with basic education and training post-19. It is an improvement for all sorts of other practical reasons. We are concerned on two grounds. First, the artificiality of making a definitive split in the Bill at 19; secondly, to find a more practical way of giving a more firm guarantee of proper provision for people who leave education without having acquired a level two qualification. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to endorse the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We on these Benches are extremely concerned that there is a cut-off at 19 when it is clear that, as the Minister herself mentioned earlier, quite a large of number of people who missed out on the education process during the normal school years are now returning to it. Many are doing so after a period in and out of work or of unemployment, having come to the conclusion at a somewhat older age that they wish to return to education and training. The Government are extremely anxious to encourage such people back in. The distinction drawn implies that there is a right for those under 19 to those facilities but for those over that age it could be more difficult if the implication of the distinction between Clause 2 and Clause 3 is, "If there's enough money in the kitty we'll do it; if there isn't, we won't".
	We should like to see that entitlement extended to those aged up to 24. The National Skills Task Force recommended in its third report that the entitlement up to level three education should be met by the Government up to the age of 24. We should like the Government to accept that proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, our amendment is somewhat looser than hers. It gives greater discretion to the Government and in that sense it is something of a probing amendment. We are looking for a commitment or statement from the Government as to how they view the proposals from the National Skills Task Force.

Baroness Blackstone: We recognise that the country needs a substantial improvement in participation and achievement at every level of attainment, not only at level two. We are only too aware of the legacy left, I am afraid to say, by a failure to invest in our education. The amendments highlight that part of that legacy, indicating that nearly 900,000 people in the 19 to 25 age group in England do not have a level two qualification. There are well over 1 million such people in the United Kingdom as a whole.
	We have already acted to improve performance towards all the national learning targets, supported by an unprecedented investment of public funding. Our target is for 85 per cent of 19 year-olds to attain level two. The attainment of that target is not only a task of the post-school world; schools also have a vital, if not a predominant, role to play in ensuring that pupils leave with the skills they need for the future. We expect the provision funded by the learning and skills council to build on the improvements now taking place in school standards.
	The LSC will be required to give priority to the learning of 16 to 19 year-olds, fulfilling our commitment in the White Paper to give all 16 to 19 year-olds an entitlement to education and training, whether full-time or part-time, if they want it. In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee, we expect the additional resources that we are devoting to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it. We are making the biggest ever investment in further education: £3.9 billion in 2001-02, compared with £3.1 billion in 1998-99--an extra £800 million.
	In discharging its duties, the council must of course take into account the differing aptitudes and abilities of all the people for whom it has responsibility. The local LSCs will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-19 provision in their area. Delivering progress towards the national targets will be an important part of their responsibilities. But to single out the needs of one group of adults and to give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although of course I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendments. It would restrict the council's ability and discretion to make judgments about what may be the equally, and perhaps even more pressing, needs of other adults, including those with special needs or disabilities. The LSC must be able to exercise discretion.
	Although we judged it right to make a distinction between provision for the 16 to 19 age group and adults in much the same way as the previous government's legislation, it is certainly not the case that we regard learning for adults as unimportant. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about 19 not being a complete cut-off age. Of course it is not; of course there are young people half-way through courses; and of course there are young people who for one reason or another need to catch up. However, for the sake of convenience, we need to have some clear understanding of what constitutes "young people" for the purposes of this Bill, and indeed for the purposes of the work of the LSC, as against adults.
	We have already announced an enormous increase in resources available for adult learning in further education. In 1998-99 expenditure on adults in further education was £1.6 billion pounds. In 2001-02 it will be £2 billion. This will enable the number of further education students to increase by 650,000 by the academic year 2000-01, compared with 1997-98. We need to go further. We expect to widen participation substantially, and the major part of that expansion will be for adults. I do not accept that we are in any way undervaluing the learning needs of adults.
	The UFI, which is to be launched in the autumn, will provide adult learners with, we hope, even greater choice and flexibility. It will offer innovative ways of accessing and delivering provision and will be responsive to the needs and circumstances of many hundreds of thousands of learners. The LSC will work closely with the UFI to ensure a coherent approach to education and training for adults. No one should be in any doubt that the Government wish to embed lifelong learning into people's lives.
	However, we must get things right for younger learners in the first place. The challenge at 16 to 19 cannot be underestimated. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the findings of the Social Exclusion Unit's report Bridging the Gap, but I want to highlight a few key findings. In the 16 to 19 age group we have still, regrettably, some of the lowest rates of participation in Europe. We have a sharper decline in participation from age 16 to age 18 than many countries in Europe. Young people who are not participating are at increased risk of being unemployed, becoming involved in drug abuse and having poor physical health. We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group, and nothing must detract from that. Let us get this right and then we can focus the increasing resources we are devoting to adults into enhancing and developing higher level skills, not in tackling the results of earlier failure. If we can get it right, we will save on later expenditure. We will pick up the pieces from that failure and be able to invest more in developing adult skills.
	I must also point out that extending the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account. For young people alone the council will be spending the best part of £4 billion pounds on an age group that covers a two-year cohort. As I said, we have increased the resources for adults and will continue to do so. But with the best will in the world, no government could put on the face of the Bill a commitment of the type that is sought. It would be misleading and deceptive to make a provision that we could not deliver; and equally it would have been misleading for us not to have made clear in the Bill our policy priorities.
	In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I must resist her amendment and ask for it to be withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness said that it is important to have a definition of "young adult"--someone up to the age of 19 as set out in the Bill. But there is no rationale for that other than the use of the word "proper" in subsection (1) and the word "reasonable" in the first line of Clause 3. Otherwise it would not be necessary to define that at all. The noble Baroness has not referred to those two words and has not referred to the distinction which I asked to be made when I moved Amendment No. 25.
	As far as I can see, there is not an open cheque for proper provision as set out in Clause 2, unless the Government say that proper provision means that proper provision will be made as long as the resources are used cost-effectively--but will be made whatever it costs. In Clause 3, which uses the word "reasonable", subsection (2) is very restrictive. It refers to,
	"taking account of the Council's resources".
	Is the argument that for making proper provision the council does not have to take into account its resources and that in making reasonable provision the council does have to have regard to its resources?
	In the real world any local authority or any local skills council trying to perform its duties under the Bill, even in the proper provision set out in Clause 2, will inevitably have to have regard to the resources allocated to it through the funding system. I am fascinated by the distinction between provision for under-19s and provision for post-19s and the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable".

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I, too, am somewhat disappointed by it. I had hoped that we would receive a clearer statement as to where we might be on the learning entitlement for 19 to 24 year-olds, although I understand the argument that at the moment the Government's priority lies with the younger age group. I also take in fully the points which the noble Baroness made in relation to the need to give priority to that age group and how badly we perform in international terms at that level. I very much hope that before long the Government will be able to say something more positive on this issue.

Baroness Blatch: I asked the Minister a question. I am waiting for a reply.

Baroness Blackstone: There is an issue here about entitlement. Clearly, once we have written on the face of the Bill an entitlement, there are major resource implications. In relation to "proper" and "reasonable" and the use of resources, later amendments refer to this issue. Perhaps I may deal with the matter when we reach them.

Baroness Blatch: I find that extraordinary because this is absolutely material and key to these amendments. The whole point of looking at the distinction between up to 19 and beyond 19 relates to these two words in the first lines of Clauses 2 and 3. That is entirely pertinent. I do not know to which amendments the noble Baroness refers. I am talking about Clauses 2 and 3, where two distinctive approaches are taken to providing education for pre-19 and post-19 year-olds. Clause 3 refers to the council being mindful of resources. I am arguing that, in the real world, even in making provision under Clause 2, any council will have to have regard to its resources. It is not a blank cheque policy.

Baroness Blackstone: In the interests of making progress, as the issue is raised directly in Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, I should be grateful if we could return to it when we debate those amendments.

Baroness Blatch: I am disappointed; however, I shall wait in anticipation for the explanation in response to Amendment No. 34. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 1, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) education (other than higher education) suitable for the requirements of persons with learning difficulties or disabilities (or both) who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25,").

Lord Rix: In moving this amendment, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 47, 159 and 160 dealing with vocational and non-vocational learning for people with learning difficulties and disabilities. I shall speak to those amendments at the appropriate time. For the present, I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 27 and 156, which seek to remedy a well-known inadequacy in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; namely, the Act does not fully recognise the importance of learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
	The amendments are not designed to be dogmatic in awarding disabled students a stronger entitlement to further education than other students (who are of course entitled up to the age of 19). Rather, they seek to embrace in law the power to remedy a system which in practice fails a significant number of disabled young people.
	At Second Reading, I spoke of the impact of learning difficulties on the learning process, recognising that disabled learners often take longer than their peers in terms of speed of learning. I spoke specifically of the impact on students with learning disabilities, but it is also true of students with other impairments, particularly progressive conditions. Young people with physical disabilities or health problems may lose study time while undergoing treatment, with a cumulative effect on their learning. Deaf or visually impaired students, like students with learning disabilities, may have problems accessing or processing information.
	The law as it stands has had a direct adverse effect on students, often mid-way through their course as they have reached the critical age of 19. LEAs operating blanket policies of support have been known to withdraw critical support services once the age of 19 has been reached on the grounds that the students no longer fit the standard eligibility criteria. And of course, once such provisions as transport funding are withdrawn, courses are often untenable for students with disabilities.
	It is something of an irony that the substantive point has been partially recognised. The DfEE extended entitlement to special training needs up to the age of 25, and in the residential further education sector there is also an entitlement up to the age of 25.
	That creates anomalies of another kind, about which I spoke in some detail at Second Reading. Under the current dispensation, individuals have to be rejected by a number of mainstream colleges before being offered funding for residential provision. That is a substantial barrier to accessing education appropriate to the individual, which the new Learning and Skills Council Prospectus heralds as the ideal. I shall be delighted if the Minister will assure me that that barrier will be removed under new arrangements so that all students with disabilities will have the opportunity to extend their education to the age of 25 if that is necessary on account of their disability. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: My name appears on almost all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has slightly understated the case. People have problems going through the educational process if they have disabilities because they "do not fit", or--probably the worst scenario--if their disabilities are not recognised in time. Anyone who has had contact in the field of education with those with disabilities must have heard the great mantra: the disability was not recognised on time or the person did not "fit the form" or the way matters were arranged. Such people may suddenly find themselves running into the problem of being too old to go through the education process that they have begun.
	Different examples can be offered but they all come back to one thing: if the student has a parent or teacher who is on the ball and gets on to the right path quickly enough, most of the problems disappear. Certain groups need continued support, and these amendments cover them. But for many--I refer principally to dyslexics or those with mild autism, Asperger's syndrome--unless they get onto the treadmill of the right form of education and into the right set quickly enough, they will bump against the age limit of 19. For people from lower income backgrounds, especially those whose parents are not, for instance, good at paperwork, it becomes a major problem.
	During a discussion on this issue at my party conference last year, someone said to me that he had a disabled child "who had chosen its parents terribly well". I think it was a case of a lawyer and a doctor. They knew how to fill out the forms and how to batter civil servants, minor officials and local education authorities into providing the right help at the right time. That is important. If--and it is a very big "if"--the age of 25 can be added to the provisions, suddenly the situation will start to fit people better. They will have a better chance of getting through their chosen educational process, and of obtaining training and support afterwards.
	I know that many local authorities make provision afterwards, if possible; but it is a lottery. The outcome is dependent on where a person lives, the type of support that he or she has and on an organisation picking up the problems early enough. The amendment would prevent the difficulties in many cases. I hope that the Government will listen solidly to the proposal. I have made far too many speeches on this subject over the years and should like to stop!

Baroness Blatch: I support the amendments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I thought, when we discussed groupings this morning with the officer dealing with the matter, that we were taking out the Welsh amendments, Amendments Nos. 156, 159 and 160--not because they are not important but because my noble friend Lord Roberts would like to deal with them. I know that he will deal with them supportively. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that they will be dealt with under the Welsh clauses in the Bill.
	The other amendments standing on my name repeat the theme that has been set out, and in my view understated, by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with some passion.
	The fundamental points are these. For many, non-vocational education is recreational. They can take it or leave it. Therefore, it can sometimes be seen as less important than vocational education. But for those with learning difficulties, non-vocational education is often important to them and to their lifestyles for developing self-confidence, independent living skills and the like. Therefore, to such people the importance is all the greater. The amendments would place on the face of the Bill a recognition of the importance of non-vocational education.
	I know that people with learning disabilities would not wish to be singled out specifically in this way. For many others, non-vocational education is important. But there is a general feel about the Bill that non-vocational education does not receive a great deal of emphasis and will somehow end up subservient to narrowly focused education and training, mostly leading to vocational qualifications.
	I make this appeal to the Minister. For a number of people, particularly those with learning difficulties, non-vocational education is special to their lives--and in a practical way, not simply a recreational way. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My name is not attached to any of the amendments in these groups--I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for the moment. However, perhaps I may say briefly how strongly I support them. I very much hope that the divide between those up to 25 years old in the residential and non-residential sectors will go. What one needs is to follow the appropriate course. Obviously, if one is capable of going to a local non-residential college that is a further development in one's ability to manage. It is depressing that there are still instances in which support is withdrawn at the age of 19. We do not appear to have moved very far since the passing of the 1992 Act. I very much support the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about non-vocational courses, particularly for those with learning difficulties but also for the aged, the lonely and those who do not get out much. Such courses help their lives enormously.

Baroness David: My name is also added to these amendments, which I strongly support. I believe that the case for these amendments has been well made. Non-vocational courses provide a way in for a great many people. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has referred to the old. I believe that these courses provide people with the means to get started again. They may enjoy non-vocational courses that encourage them to move on to vocational courses. I very much hope that, if my noble friend cannot give way entirely, she will give some hope--I am sure that she will express understanding--that something will be done at some stage.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to support these amendments. In doing so, I should declare an interest as the father of a 19 year-old daughter with Down's syndrome who, therefore, has learning disabilities, or mental handicap (as some of us still prefer to call it). At the moment, very often there is a gap, or trap, into which children like my daughter fall when they leave school and should go on to educational provision provided by the FEFC. It is not surprising that there is no tremendous enthusiasm on the part of the FEFC or social services to take over this function completely. Therefore, such young people fall into this very unfortunate gap.
	I am glad that Amendment No. 27 spells out the fact that we are dealing also with young people with learning disabilities as opposed to learning difficulties, the former being very much more severe (in the jargon). Can the Minister say whether I am right in assuming that the social services content of the provision for these young people will continue under the new system in the same way as it should do--although it does not always--under the present system? In other words, what happens to the social provision in a young person's life when he or she leaves a course at, say, three o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps being in accommodation nearby, and all the rest of it? At the moment, this is a difficult area that is not working well. I hasten to add that my daughter aged 19 has not yet encountered the difficulties to which I refer, but I have heard of very many such cases over the past dozen years or so. I support the amendments and ask the Government to do what they can to meet them.

Lord Rix: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for the support that they have given. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 47 and so on; in other words, I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which are separate from mine.

Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to other amendments, although he cannot move them. Although it is not my business, I suggest that it would be tidier if at this stage the Minister replied to the first amendment.

Lord Rix: I shall give way.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for allowing me to reply to this group of amendments. I am perfectly content if, following my reply, the noble Lord wishes to raise issues related to other amendments in the group. A good deal of support for these amendments has been voiced in all parts of Chamber. I hope that what I am about to say is not misconstrued. Once again, it is not that we do not sympathise with and support a great deal of the thinking that underlies the amendments. However, there is a more specific difficulty with the amendments.
	Clauses 2, 3, 31 and 32 place the councils under clear duties in respect of persons aged 16 and over. They include persons with learning difficulties or disabilities for whom the councils must have particular regard because of Clauses 13 and 40 respectively. Further, as part of the councils' duties they must take account of the varying abilities and aptitudes of different persons. The Government recognise that those needs, abilities and aptitudes do not suddenly change overnight on a person's 19th birthday. No one would expect a young person who is part-way through a GNVQ not to be allowed to complete his or her course. Likewise, nothing in these provisions prevents learners from continuing their education, whether it is secured under Clauses 2 or 3 or Clauses 31 or 32.
	Where a person over the age of 19 has learning difficulties which have delayed his progress or ability to complete a course we do not want his or her opportunities for learning to be diminished; far from it. We want that person's opportunities to continue to learn to be enhanced and supported. We want to build on existing good practice. In further education, many adult students with learning difficulties already successfully undertake courses in a range of areas. Currently, arrangements enable effective support to be provided to students, including carers of various kinds and signers, material in alternative formats and so on. Students are also supported to attend specialist institutions where their needs can best be met in that environment. That will continue and will provide the basis for the LSC's work in this area.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the LSC is to be set up to meet the needs of those with learning difficulties as a priority, and so it should be. Unlike existing arrangements under the FE Acts, this Bill does not require consideration to be given to mainstream provision before a specialist place can be sought. It is not the intention that young people should be required to take provision that does not meet their needs. We shall consult on the arrangements that the LSC will develop in this area. That said, where possible we wish young people with learning difficulties to learn with their peers. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that, where possible, that should be encouraged.
	I accept that Members of the Committee can cite instances where individual learners such as I have described have not had the opportunity either to complete or to undertake the course of their choice. However, the arrangements that we propose in the Bill enable the LSC to provide effective support for them. I am in no doubt about the importance of the LSC exercising its duties under Clauses 2 and 3 in a way which reflects the need for students with learning difficulties to be able to complete their courses, perhaps having started at a later age than some of their fellow students or needing a little longer to complete them. I intend to issue guidance to the LSC to underline and reinforce that point.
	We do not, however, believe that Amendments Nos. 27 and 156 are required to ensure that the needs of such learners are met. Their effect would be to give everybody up to the age of 25 who has learning difficulties an entitlement to post-16 education and training. As many Members of the Committee will be aware, some people have relatively minor learning difficulties and their ability to learn is not significantly impaired. The consequence of the amendments would be to give them priority at the expense of other learners, some of whom may have much more significant problems due to terrible past experiences in their lives. These people come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds of one kind or another.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 38, 47, 159 and 160. I recognise the concern of noble Lords that persons with learning difficulties should have access to the full range of educational opportunities that is available to other students.
	One of the changes introduced by this Bill is an end to the unfortunate and artificial divide created by Schedule 2 to the FHE Act 1992. The duties of the LSC and the CETW are not hindered by this divide. Indeed Schedule 2 will be abolished: it is going. The duties extend to all forms of post-16 education and indeed throughout this Bill we have sought to define education so as to have the widest possible meaning.
	To qualify the definition in this way may possibly call into question that wideness of interpretation elsewhere. Clauses 2, 3, 31 and 32 place the councils under clear duties in respect of all persons aged 16 and over. I want to reinforce what I said earlier. That will include persons with learning difficulties, for whom the councils must have particular regard because of Clauses 13 and 40 respectively. There really should be no doubt that the education to be procured by the councils include both vocational and non- vocational education, not just for those with learning difficulties but for everyone.
	Of course I accept what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Darcy de Knayth, that vocational education can be especially important for those with learning difficulties and indeed also with other disabilities. But while sympathising, as I said earlier, with what lies behind these amendments, I do not actually think they are necessary. I hope that, in the light of the reassurances that I have been able to give, those with their names to these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Baroness, but may I just remind her that my noble friend Lord Roberts reserved the right to speak quite independently to the Welsh amendments. The noble Baroness has not referred to them in responding to this group of amendments but my noble friend will in fact come to them fresh, and of course given that the Welsh system is different anyway it will give him an opportunity to deal with these matters in the context of the Welsh Assembly.

Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry that I did not pick up that point, but there will be absolutely no problem about that.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I ask the noble Baroness the Minister to confirm the point that I put to her--that social services will be encouraged to deal with the social part of the costs of a child or a young person at least as enthusiastically as they do at the moment: perhaps even more so? Secondly, will the LSC be able to fund young people with severe learning difficulties in special schools that may be suitable to their needs and in accordance with their parents' wishes?

Baroness Blackstone: On the first point, this Bill is not really about social service provision and so perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to give any commitment in the context of the Committee stage of this Bill, other than to say that of course we are trying to do everything possible to improve social services provision in this particular area. As to specialist provision, I believe I referred to that earlier in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Yes, we wish to make it possible for young people with severe learning difficulties to have the specialist provision that will be more appropriate to their needs.

Lord Rix: I am very grateful to the Minister for her full response. I must apologise if I appeared to be interrupting before she actually responded to me and to others. In fact I had just been handed a paper outside the Chamber which illustrated the problems between vocational and non-vocational opportunities. There is a college of further education that has cut its part-time pre-vocational programmes for students with severe learning disabilities by half--that is 13 programmes--because it is difficult to prove that all the students would move on to vocational courses. I must stress that many in the MENCAP constituency are people with profound multiple disabilities who will never actually be able to take part in what are considered to be normal educational or indeed vocational activities. However, they should still be given an opportunity to progress. That is what I was hoping to add before the noble Baroness replied.
	As regards Amendment No. 27, obviously I am disappointed that we cannot get a commitment to continue the education of people with learning disabilities up to the age of 25, but I must take away the Minister's response. I will consult with my colleagues on the disability consortium on post-16 education and training, and with others in your Lordships' House, before possibly returning to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 not moved.]

Lord Bach: Before Amendment No. 31 is called, perhaps I may beg to move that the House be now resumed. In so moving, may I suggest that the Committee does not begin again before 8.26 p.m.?

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Latin America: Trade

Baroness Hooper: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for promoting trade with Latin America in the light of the review by British Trade International.
	My Lords, the purpose of this short debate is, first, to ascertain the Government's latest plans to help and support British exporters in finding new markets and further developing existing trade and commercial links. Secondly, it is to inquire what the proposed changes may be. Thirdly, it is to ensure that at least some of the views of those who have been working in the field are given due consideration before it is too late.
	My own particular focus, as president of Canning House (the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council), will be on Latin America and in particular on the work of LATAG, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group. My noble friend Lady Young will, I believe, concentrate on the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group. I am most grateful to her and to all speakers who are going to contribute in either a general or specific way to this debate from all sides of the House.
	The immediate background and the reason for the timing of this debate follows on from the review of the current official arrangements for the support and promotion of exports initiated in June 1998 by the Foreign Secretary and the then President of the Board of Trade. Sir Richard Wilson was appointed to head the review team, composed of leading industrialists and senior civil servants.
	This led to the Wilson Review, published in February 1999, which considered five broad options for structural change, and came down in favour of a unified DTI/FCO operation for furthering and improving British trade. Thus British Trade International was born in June 1999. So far so good, although these developments did not catch the headlines and to this day I believe that a large number of people in the business world are quite unaware of the changes.
	One of British Trade International's first functions was to look at the role of business advisory groups. There are some 44 various groups covering most parts of the world, in terms of individual countries, regions and sectors of trade. Some of these work well and some do not. Some of these operate "in-house", within the Department of Trade and Industry--or, as it now is, British Trade International. Some of them are "out-housed", as in the case of LATAG.
	Perhaps I may move now from the general and dwell particularly on the Latin American Trade Advisory Group as an example of an out-housed area advisory group which has worked extremely well. In your Lordships' House, I hardly think I need reiterate the desirability of a strong British presence in the important developing markets of Latin America. Suffice it to say that the United Kingdom is the third largest investor in Latin America after the United States and Japan. Our exports, however, do not on the whole enjoy a favourable trade balance, and certainly suffered a sharp decline in 1998-99 because of the recession.
	Nevertheless, we enjoy very good relations, historical and actual, in the region and we want to send the right signals to Latin American governments at a time when UK support for their various reform programmes is so important and when opportunities for UK trade are expected to benefit as a result.
	LATAG has been promoting awareness of Latin America to British exporters in a number of ways. It has put its DTI funding to the best possible use. For example, it has initiated missions to markets no one else wishes to visit, and maintained that focus until the mission sponsors have taken up the role: for example, to Peru and Bolivia in the early and mid-1990s; to Central America in the late 1980s; and currently with the approval of the DTI desks, it plans to visit Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela in February 2001.
	It has targeted consumer goods manufacturers in the United Kingdom and organised 10 exhibitions in a number of markets in Latin America. It has worked closely with the DTI to encourage our mining equipment manufacturers to target the region with a four-year programme; oil equipment manufacturers with a two-year programme; gas equipment manufacturers with a two-year programme; and auto component manufacturers over a four-year programme. It is now targeting our universities to promote healthcare education and training in the region over a three-year period.
	It publishes a bi-monthly magazine and a weekly newsletter, neither of which are subsidised by the DTI grant, and has secured 205,000 euros in funding from the European Union in 1998 and 1999. It has achieved all that with a very small secretariat which, nevertheless, represents an in-depth background knowledge of the region, has the necessary language skills and in addition shows proven administrative ability and the personality to carry a representational role as well as benefiting from continuity.
	It has benefited from successive high-powered chairmen, enjoys good private-sector support in cash and in kind and, because it is housed within Canning House, shares and benefits the wider work we carry out there.
	However, it is in relation in particular to its work with small and medium-sized enterprises that LATAG has been successful. Those of us with experience in the field know that the big boys can to some extent look after themselves, but the contacts and initial moves required by small and medium-sized enterprises must be focused and helped by the expertise that an advisory group such as LATAG can provide. Without a doubt, the work of LATAG has been efficient and cost effective, and we want to maintain and build upon its energy and drive in our continuing efforts in the Latin American markets.
	I referred earlier to the business advisory groups' review. It recommends that most of the out-house groups should become in-house under the remit of British Trade International. I understand that North America, the Caribbean and the whole of Latin America will become one in-house group, although the final structure is due to be announced next month.
	There is a cautionary tale here. I look back to the unhappy transition from the British National Export Council to the British Overseas Trade Board which was attempted in 1972-72. It was handled abruptly and the regional structure all but collapsed with the old BNEC members simply walking away. I believe that there were instances where in the end the DTI reverted to giving cash support to out-housed activities. We do not want to see a repetition of that. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Limerick for that information. Had circumstances not changed last year, he would certainly have contributed to this debate, as on so many occasions in the past, from his expertise and interest in overseas trade. In that context, I need hardly add that my noble friend Lord Montgomery, although similarly barred, is following keenly our procedures.
	In conclusion, I wish to make a plea. It may sound like several pleas. However, the one objective is to ensure that those vital and growing markets which stretch from Mexico through Central America and the Caribbean, and all the way through South America to Tierra del Fuego, remain as accessible and open to British trade, commerce and investors as they are now--indeed, we should improve on what is happening now--and that the United Kingdom can continue to be seen as an important link or bridge between the development of EU trade with the Latin American markets and the growing regional groupings such as Mercosur and the Andean Pact. My plea for achieving that objective is that the Government should not make change for the sake of change. They should ensure that all necessary consultation has taken place and full consideration given to finding the best possible alternative to the present out-housing arrangements, if change there must be.
	Secondly, my plea is that the danger of a "one solution for all" approach is fully recognised and that decisions concerning, for example, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group, be taken individually and on their own merits.
	Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will convey to his noble friend Lord Sainsbury--I understand that he has departmental responsibility for some of those decisions--the concerns and arguments raised in the debate; and the hope that his door will remain open to those who have direct knowledge of and commitment to the work in this overseas trade region before any final decision on making changes takes place.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained the basis of her concerns, in particular the consequences of the transfer from out-house to in-house status for the area advisory groups of the DTI and their merging into larger groups. The noble Baroness concentrated on LATAG. However, she referred to the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group (CARITAG), about which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will speak with expertise, and which has the same concerns. Under the aegis of CARITAG is the Cuba Initiative for which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was the midwife and of which I am a member. I can declare that I have no financial interests in trade with Cuba or Latin America.
	The small secretariat of the Cuba Initiative is provided by CARITAG and housed in the same building. Although many of the recent meetings of the Cuba Initiative have been held at the DTI it is a sub-outhouse--a small garden shed perhaps--compared with the large barns of LATAG at Canning House. I do not think that Canning House would like to be called a barn, but it "out-houses" that organisation.
	Although I have visited 12 Latin American and Caribbean countries, I have spent the longest time in Cuba, including being a member of the British IPU Group which visited Cuba in September 1998. As we discussed in the Unstarred Question on Cuba which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, last year, Cuba had completely to reorientate its external trading arrangements after the collapse of the Soviet Union with whom 80 per cent of its trade was done. That has not been easy, especially with the embargo on Cuba imposed by the United States which is Cuba's natural trading partner. Cubans had to tighten their belts, and nutritional deficiencies occurred in the early to mid-1990s. However, the worst is now over and the Cubans have developed trade links with Europe, Japan, China and other Caribbean and other Latin American countries. The tourist industry is growing rapidly and the sugar crop is now beginning to recover after some lean years.
	Until this year, there was a long period when Britain alone among European countries could not, or would not, provide export credit guarantees to Cuba. However, thanks to a considerable extent to the continuous knocking on the door of the Department of Trade and Industry by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there has at last been a renegotiation of Cuba's modest medium-term debt so that the ECGB may shortly be able to offer loans. Just before he was appointed to the Scottish Office, Brian Wilson, the then Minister for Trade, said last October at the Havana International Fair,
	"The ECGD agreement is of symbolic as well as substantial importance. The old debt has been used as a reason for no progress being made in trade relations between Britain and Cuba. Removing that obstacle has been the focal point for changing relations between the two governments".
	So I hope to see a rapid rise in British exports to Cuba, despite Helms-Burton and the US embargo. There is a huge need for replacement of the outdated and decrepit infrastructure of Cuba, as well as further tourist associated exports, which Cuba has already been able to pay for since they bring such immediate returns.
	The relevance of this to the noble Baroness's Question is that the personal contacts, detailed local knowledge and linguistic ability of members of CARITAG and the Cuba Initiative and the sharing of their experience will be helpful, if not essential, in getting needed British exports to Cuba off the ground. As an example of the kind of value given to such contacts and advisory groups by exporters, I shall read out a couple of paragraphs from a letter sent to me by the president of the British Association of Day Surgery, which is carrying out work in Argentina.
	"Personal contact and friendship still seem to be worth much more than promptness on the fax and e-mail and recently in Argentina involved both political parties at the time of their elections.
	An advisory group can afford to be a little more eclectic than governments. Half-hearted and misdirected efforts need to be wheedled out which can be more difficult for Government bodies".
	I hope that the proposed DTI review will in no way curtail the work of these free-ranging advisers.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for raising the question of area advisory groups to British Trade International and their future. I spoke briefly on this matter during the recent debate on foreign affairs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands fully that this is a matter of very deep concern to Caribbean governments, to the business community in the United Kingdom trading with the region, as well as to the members of the Caribbean Area Advisory Group, known as CARITAG.
	I should declare an interest as president of the West India Committee and chairman of the British Cuba Initiative, about which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already spoken. Furthermore, I hope that the noble Lord will pass on to his noble friend Lord Sainsbury our anxieties about the proposed changes, because I understand that, as part of the plans to reorder priorities within BTI, a decision will be taken shortly to change the way in which it advises the private sector in the United Kingdom and delivers its export promotional services. Instead of having area advisory groups that reflect the complex and diverse nature of our trading relationships, it is likely that their special expertise will be dispensed with. This applies to groups covering all parts of the world as different as Eastern Europe, Israel, the Caribbean and Latin America. In their place, consideration is being given to amalgamating them all into a limited number of internal groups run by officials with priority and resources only being made available for those countries or sectors within the region that BTI considers to be of importance. So for area advisory groups, which are mainly drawn from small and medium-sized enterprises and whose members have personal experience in regions like the Caribbean, the future is very uncertain.
	This means that the area advisory groups for the region about which I am most concerned--the Caribbean--will be merged with Latin America and North America into an Americas group. The prevailing BTI logic suggests that this single body will concentrate on the United States and Brazil. I understand that this approach will be mirrored in the way that resources are managed within BTI and that the level of attention given to the Caribbean by officials will be further diminished.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands that trade and investment are the cement of international relations. Any decision, no matter how pragmatic, that diminishes the attention given to a region such as the Caribbean will quickly result in a reduction of the importance of that region. I am surprised that this should happen when, by common consent, the region is very fragile and vulnerable as it transits out of its existing preferential arrangements for commodities such as bananas. Furthermore, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the great anxiety lest that transition should mean a replacement with something as difficult and unpleasant as the drugs trade.
	Any decision to diminish the already weak profile of the Caribbean is particularly curious when I understand that as recently as last September the Prime Minister assured Commonwealth Caribbean heads of government attending the CHOGM conference that he recognised that the moment had come to find ways to renew the relationship with the Commonwealth Caribbean.
	It is even more surprising that CARITAG may be merged into an Americas group when it is clear that the Commonwealth Caribbean heads of government are asking Britain to recognise their special regional identity. The British Government will host a Caribbean forum for Caribbean foreign Ministers in May of this year. I believe that this is intended to identify ways to renew and build a new relationship with Britain. How does all this fit together?
	CARITAG's demise also brings into question the very special relationship with Cuba, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that has enabled Britain to expand its dialogue with the Cuban Government through trade. Indeed, Ministers have recently made clear to this House the importance of our trade contacts with Cuba in enabling dialogue.
	However, what concerns me most is that this is potentially--I hope that the noble Lord understands this point and I choose my words carefully--a foreign policy disaster. Anyone who knows the region will be aware of the recent events over bananas, the WTO process in Seattle and the changed relationship with Europe which has left the Caribbean feeling sensitive and marginalised. Last year the Spanish Prime Minister visited the Caribbean and met Caribbean leaders. President Chirac will soon do the same. The Caribbean market, although small, purchases over a billion dollars' worth of goods from us each year. In the light of that, what sense does it make for Britain to save the £95,000 a year that it spends on CARITAG?
	I should like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to answer a number of questions. Can he say when the Government plan to reorganise the area advisory groups and when he will announce this? Have there been consultations with the Foreign Office and with our posts about the political and economic implications for the Caribbean? Do the Government intend to inform Caribbean governments of their decision? How does BTI intend to retain region-specific expertise on the Caribbean in its future deliberations? How does it intend to deliver Caribbean-related programmes for the community in the UK or Cuba?
	I do not ask these questions to be difficult. I am very concerned about the Caribbean. This is an extremely serious situation and if the Minister cannot answer my specific questions tonight, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me.

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the review by British Trade International with particular reference to Latin America. From a personal point of view, I welcome that review. I found it useful, although I share her concern about the lack of information. I found it hard to find out about the review. However, once I discovered the website, I found that to be quite helpful.
	From my perspective, I believe that consolidation of export and trade promotion into a single brand--"digitally available", to use the words of the website--is good. From bitter personal experience--I spent 11 years on the other side of the export effort overseas--the most confusing thing was the plethora of export promotion bodies that came through the front door asking for help. That left the local market places confused and unfocused.
	I believe that the most encouraging aspect of the strategy which is outlined on the website is what I would describe as a move from the shotgun approach of export promotion to one of rifle shot. I regard that as particularly important in the context of Latin America. Latin America is easy to talk about, but it is not a homogeneous area, economically, geographically or culturally. It has three very large economies: Brazil, at 780 billion dollars in GDP--about half the size of the UK; Mexico, which everyone focuses on, with a GDP of approximately 400 billion dollars--somewhere between that of the Netherlands and India; and Argentina, at approximately 340 billion dollars--the size of Australia. At the other end of the spectrum is Guyana, with a GDP of 700 million dollars. The range is enormous. The cultural diversity is vast; the opportunities, I suggest, are limitless, but we must focus on them.
	If looked at as an exporter, those economies in general have not been doing well. The combination of El Nino, the collapse of world commodity prices and the reduction in access to international capital markets on the back of the Asian crisis have caused them problems. Uncertainty in their cycle of presidential elections has made that worse. Although the forecasts are for that region to grow and for many of the economies to perform better, I believe that the issue is one of focus; it is one of selecting where to put our effort, and we might well look at Mexico as an example.
	Mexico, with its relationship with NAFTA, has border developments which competitor nations--particularly the Japanese--have not been slow to exploit. A whole series of manufacturing operations are being established along the Mexican border, which is seen as a base for access to the US market at a lower cost. That is allied to the presence in the region of what I believe to be a formidable competitor--the USA--not only in terms of its economic power but in its foreign direct investment into that area, which has been vast. The USA has an advantage in its cultural and heritage aspect, particularly with regard to Hispanic matters. That has given it an advantage over us when talking to the Hispanic nations there.
	Perhaps more importantly, and not often realised, is the transport advantage which the USA has. While North American cities may well be an equal distance away, if one travels to Latin America as frequently as I have done, one will find that frequently it is best to travel from one country to another by going via Miami. That is an advantage in economic terms.
	I summarise, therefore, by encouraging the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to look at this issue through the sights of a rifle rather than over the barrel of a shotgun, remembering that at present the area accounts for approximately 1.9 per cent of our exports and approximately 1.6 per cent of our imports. We need to focus carefully with the best possible expertise on the areas that will yield us the best results. That is my view in economic terms. There are, of course, other foreign policy matters that need to be considered as well.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, many issues arise from the Question of the noble Baroness. So far as Latin America is concerned, we need to differentiate between investment and trade opportunities. On the one hand, Britain excels; on the other hand, we have not risen sufficiently to the challenge.
	Realistic opportunities do abound with national economies prospering. But with global exports increasing, and with developing countries bringing an increase in competition, the United Kingdom simply cannot take a relaxed view, particularly when we hold many comparative advantages. We in this country are bad at harmonising national strategies that encompass public and private sectors. That needs to be overcome as an imperative. The French notably are far better than we are in this regard.
	The private sector is in the ascendant in the United Kingdom, yet the public sector continues to interfere regularly with private sector goodwill endeavours. As chairman of a chamber of commerce, for example, I have had recent experience of high-handed intervention by a BTI official, who sought to undermine co-operation with a foreign chamber. Happily, an MOU was none the less subsequently signed, and it has already borne fruit.
	As no or little government funding is forthcoming for innovative strategic marketing of services by the private sector, the Minister responsible should be careful not to erode the endeavours of the private sector, such as that that concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. That said, however, I welcome the spirit of the long overdue Wilson review and hope that Sir David Wright will address where the public sector contribution to export promotion begins and ends so as to allow others to make a much-needed contribution.
	Sir Martin Laing's interim report has recommended combining the Americas, and that includes Canada and the Caribbean. With the exception of the Miami gateway factor, the United States is a long way removed from South America. In my view, care needs to be taken when considering the geographical split.
	Whatever is finally agreed, the objects of organisations such as LATAG and, in the case of the Caribbean, CARITAG have a key role. On the broader front, the Institute of Export survey of international services provided to exporters confirmed that exporters are still unaware of the many excellent services available from government sources. The plethora of services available from a range of different official sources creates confusion, and so they are under-utilised. Government export support services should be more closely targeted, with better signposting and clearer branding of key services. The Wilson review appears to recognise that export promotion must become more customer-focused, more coherent and should be less diffuse. A clearly coherent strategy must succeed and without delay.
	Beyond that, Sir David must maintain his customary pragmatic approach, but be supported with a comprehensive policy to export promotion. For example, in my mind, it serves little point to work hard in the national interest when a sometime key ingredient--ECGD--is unresponsive, with its often exasperating criteria for project support.

Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for giving us the opportunity to have this small but important debate. I shall not trouble your Lordships for long this evening, but I have had some small experience of both trading and living in Argentina. Aspects of the review by British Trade International which we are considering this evening give me cause for concern, although, of course, I support worthwhile and effective reform in this area.
	Like earlier speakers, I wondered whether the "out-house" restructuring would mean merely desk-bound civil servants taking over jobs from businessmen to the detriment of the vital person-to-person contacts which smooth the way for trade. Those sometimes take years to build up, as we all know, and could so easily be inadvertently destroyed by lack of the right kind of background and knowledge.
	It is important, for example, to realise that the phrase "Latin America" is not always helpful when describing countries that may be thousands of miles apart and that have individual characteristics, procedures and approaches. Taking the whole of the two great subcontinents together and calling them for trade purposes "The Americas" seems to me to be the same as lumping together China and Russia and calling them Asia, saying that we shall treat the whole area in the same way. I hope that is not true.
	There are enormous opportunities for our businessmen in South America, particularly with Mercosur. We should change the second language taught in schools in this country to Spanish--not forgetting Portuguese, although I do not suggest that that should be the second language. We should make absolutely sure that bodies set up to help businessmen trade are composed of persons skilled in personal contacts. The customer must be served.

Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. Until I had read the material I would not have been aware of such great changes taking place. When she said that British Trade International did not make a splash, that is an understatement. Given a title like that I would be surprised if anybody noticed it.
	I want to make a couple of points about the report and then to talk specifically about Latin America. The report is an example of people wanting to rationalise everything. The rationale for doing so, in the way that I read the report, has not been made. The survey showed that the level of customer satisfaction was high, although I agree that in the case of Latin America only one out of 17 people replied. By and large, customer satisfaction was high. We also see that not much money is being spent on this and that very little is being wasted.
	Compared with an in-house group, an out-house group means that one can have flexible strategies and that people can be co-opted as and when one likes. I am sure that an in-house group would cost more money, would be less flexible and would not do such a good job. One of the oldest lessons learned in economics is how to use local knowledge. One has to decentralise, to take advantage of the private sector initiative and not put everything into administration.
	Given that background, I would not have chosen the umbrella approach but a matrix approach which would not have meant aggregating all the Americas into one lump. They could have had a matrix of countries by sectors or by markets and therefore one could pick up a combination of countries and markets rather than having this peculiar umbrella approach.
	If it is not too late and if the co-operation and expertise of the private sector can be retained, given that it is not onerously expensive, I believe that that should be done. It is also the case that a variety of opportunities will arise, not necessarily in the narrowly defined trade areas but in other areas, including healthcare, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. I know that a lot of municipal water schemes, in which Britain has great expertise, are being launched. I believe that in the near future water will become a big investment area.
	I believe that an out-house agency can take advantage of university expertise, but that is not mentioned in the report. All those area groups ought to liaise with the tremendous expertise that our universities have in relation to these regions. We have people who have absorbed the details of the regions over many years. That is an under-utilised resource. I say that as an academic. I know that the Institute of Latin American Studies at London University would be a good source for expertise, as would Oxford and Cambridge. I do not want to be parochial. That can be done by an out-house agency. For an in-house agency it would be difficult because it would have to go through DfEE or the like and it would become too complicated. At the end of the day, I hope that whatever happens, trade grows rather than decreases.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper on raising this important Question.
	I am always pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, however I am sorry that the Minister for Science at the Department of Trade and Industry, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not in his place to respond to specific concerns raised this evening.
	In considering the Question before us it is helpful to remind ourselves of the criteria used by the Wilson review for determining the preferred option for structural change for the delivery of export promotion. They are as follows. Would any proposed arrangements be clearer to potential exporters? Would a new structure be more accessible than the present arrangements to customers? Would any new structure deliver services, including market information to clients more quickly? Would a new structure have clearer leadership with the necessary clout with Ministers and customers? Would a new structure deliver the export forum recommendations more effectively? Would a new structure be better placed to change schemes and services when appropriate and be better placed to take speedy actions? Would a new structure improve and strengthen linkages between front-end delivery and the centre? Would a new structure strengthen links between export promotion and trade and inward investment policy?
	British Trade International was formed with a view to meeting those criteria and it is now looking to the role of the business advisory groups within its remit. Clearly there is considerable concern with regard to the future of such groups and a fear that decisions--important decisions--that will necessarily impact upon the ability of British Trade International to perform its role in the promotion of trade are being taken too quickly and without sufficient consultation with interested bodies that are working in the area. We have been told that there is to be a single Americas committee--one of four world-wide--catering for all market needs in that region and that committee will advise on both regional and sector issues so that a number of existing area advisory groups will cease to exist.
	The knock-on effect of that would, in practice, be to focus upon the larger, more established markets or economies of, for example, Brazil and Mexico. Of course, Mexico already has the advantage of being a member of NAFTA. That would take place at the expense of smaller economies such as Bolivia, Paraguay, Equador and Columbia. In addition, the promotional and developmental work carried out by outhouse groups such as LATAG and CARITAG will be lost. Given that the proposed Americas committee will include within its remit the USA, the Caribbean, Canada and South America, it is hard to envisage proper emphasis being placed upon any other than the dominant economies.
	We are also informed that if all or most of the current so-called outhouse groups are brought inhouse they will be run or managed by civil servants as opposed to commercially-minded businessmen with skills and experience pertinent to their geographical or sector area. There is no question that businessmen prefer to do business with fellow businessmen and there is a concern that that culture will be lost. We would welcome the Government's response to such concerns.
	On a positive note I want to make it clear that, having consulted with representatives from a small number of business sectors with interests in South America, there is no doubt that some broadly welcome the concept of British Trade International. I offer as an example the motor sport performance engineering sector. That is a small sector with an overall turnover of approximately £2 billion per annum. However, it is highly influential in the global automotive marketplace. It is a flagship sector that punches above its weight and one that has found British Trade International helpful and resourceful. Their trade association representative has spoken of British Trade International having clarity of brand and marketing, making its support services for their customers accessible, user-friendly and, therefore, effective. However, I should add that this positive experience relates to a relatively large established economy in South America; namely, Brazil.
	Ultimately, of course, our interest must be to view its delivery of services through the eyes of the customer. That delivery must depend on how its resources are focused. Can it work for the small economies as well as established economies? Is it the aim of government to develop a service which is sector-focused and/or regionally focused? I like the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he makes reference to a matrix. Surely it should be possible for us to consider a more sophisticated approach now, whereby we drive our focus towards sectors as opposed to geography.
	Can a grouping such as the Americas committee honestly deliver with such a broad remit for such a diverse group of countries, both commercially and culturally? We are considering a very important mix of economies with numerous diverse emerging markets. Therefore, I repeat the plea of my noble friend Lady Hooper who is asking that we ensure that vital and growing markets remain as accessible and open to British trade and commerce as they are now.
	In considering the future of the advisory groups, I would ask the Minister to look again at the criterion originally set for effective export promotion by the Wilson review--to which I have already referred this evening--and to consider whether the proposed changes to the British advisory groups will protect and enhance the trading interests of all affected countries, including vulnerable countries such as the Caribbean and Cuba.
	Perhaps I may also reiterate the deep concern articulated by my noble friend Lady Young regarding the future of the Caribbean. I hope that her concerns will be seriously considered as decisions are taken, remembering that trade promotions should not be considered in a vacuum without proper regard for the bigger picture, and that must include the cultural and political stability of each country.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government also are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. I must say that she timed it extremely well. It is quite clear that a number of your Lordships have concerns about the nature of the review which is taking place of our export promotion activities, particularly in Latin America and in the Caribbean. It is proper that those concerns should be expressed and should be available to Sir Martin Laing and of course in the end to the Board of British Trade International which is to consider his final report which will be submitted to them at the end of March this year.
	I apologise for my noble friend Lord Sainsbury who was unable to take this debate. I assure noble Lords that he does not have specific responsibility within the department either for trade or Latin America. If he did, I might not be here. This is particularly so since my qualifications for taking part in this debate are negative rather than positive. My contact with Latin America and the Caribbean has been as an organiser of trade missions to a number of places there; in particular, Panama, Mexico and Guatemala, but on behalf of the European Commission. It felt guilty about the advantages given to the Lome Convention countries, and wanted to organise trade missions from Europe, which I organised for it, to encourage exporters from those countries to sell to Europe. So we were taking groups of importers from Europe, perhaps it might be said, in conflict with what noble Lords' expertise is. I do not think so. I think it has to work in both directions. So I hope that my experience has been helpful to me in thinking about the issues raised in the debate today.
	Certainly, from the point of view of the Government, our trade relationships with Latin America are an important subject for the House to consider. Over the past decade the region has emerged as a growing force on the world stage, not only economically, but also politically. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, there are still many problems despite the political and economic reforms and the historic co-operation between countries in the region which forced the rest of the world to take notice of Latin America, perhaps in an unprecedented way.
	This is particularly true on the trade and economic front where Latin American countries have been at the forefront of trade liberalisation moves. It is now widely accepted that countries in Latin America are natural trading partners for other liberal economies. Our support for this process helped to forge last year a free trade agreement with Mexico and the EU. It is also helping to move forward discussions on agreements with Mercosur and Chile. The Government intend to continue playing a full part in ensuring that British business takes every advantage of the enormous opportunities for trade, investment and business partnership with Latin America.
	I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and other noble Lords for their contributions over many years to the fostering of closer relations between the United Kingdom and the countries of Latin America. Although strictly speaking the Caribbean is not the subject of the debate, I pay comparable tribute, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to all who worked with her in CARITAG. I do not shy away from discussing the Caribbean just because it was not part of the original subject of this evening's Question.
	All parts of the United Kingdom, and countless organisations and enterprises in the private sector, have been responding to this challenge. As well as the many missions sponsored each year by British Trade International with private sector organisers, others have been promoted by agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, invariably in collaboration with British Trade International. I entirely agree with what noble Lords have said, notably my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Luke, that personal contact is absolutely essential if we are going to make progress in this area. There has not been any falling off in ministerial visits. I do not have the full list, but my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, when he was Minister of Trade, made two visits in one year to Latin America as part of a punishing schedule. Indeed, sadly, it was a schedule which has punished him.
	I return to Latin America. A central role in this process has been played by Canning House, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is the current president. I also pay tribute to Lord Montgomery and Lord Limerick who are no longer with us, but who are past presidents of Canning House, and of course the Latin America Trade Advisory Group, which originally emerged from it and whose work was so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Especially in the bleak 1980s--the so-called "lost decade"--when for so many Latin America appeared to be a lost cause, those two organisations helped to keep interest alive in this country.
	When Latin America so impressively re-emerged during the 1990s, those two organisations played an important role in supporting the government in developing a closer relationship with Latin America. I thank them both, and all Members of this House associated with them. I would extend those thanks to those who have supported CARITAG. But I know that both of them, while preserving our history, also look forward to the future. We must do as much as we can to ensure that our businesses are well equipped for the task ahead. That means ensuring that the support and promotional services provided by the Government are the best available and meet the needs of business. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, on this issue were very wise. Not being very knowledgeable about guns I am not sure that I follow the metaphors about the "shotgun" or "rifle" approach, because I really do not know what they do. However, I think that someone is trying to tell me something.
	Just as Britain has been forging a new relationship with Latin America for the future, so the Government have been examining ways of improving our services to exporters, as well as looking at ways of using our resources more effectively. I want to emphasise that we have done that all the time in close collaboration with business itself as we have been determined to ensure that in all we do we focus above all on customer needs. The process started in 1997 when the Government set up the Export Forum to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements with particular emphasis, as was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, on the recommendations which addressed weaknesses which were seen to reduce the effectiveness of the Government's overseas trade services. They included the need for a greater customer focus and more defined market priorities with a greater emphasis on sectors and outward investment.
	A number of noble Lords seemed to feel that the Wilson review received poor publicity. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in particular said that it was not well known. When we look at the 24-page list of contributors to the review it is obvious that, whether or not they read the review to which they contributed, they knew it was taking place and must have received copies of it when it was concluded. It seemed to me to be a comprehensive list of everybody who might conceivably be interested in the review's outcome. That resulted in the setting up last year of British Trade International which brought together the trade promotion activities of the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (through its post overseas) in a unified operation under a chief executive, reporting to a board drawn predominantly from the private sector.
	That is why I do not understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that somehow it is an organisation driven by civil servants. It consists largely of export promoters, development counsellors, as well as hundreds of commercial officers overseas, all of whom have direct links with the markets in which they are located. The emphasis was always on developing a more coherent approach with an overriding customer and sector focus combined with a shift towards trade development; that is, helping companies--particularly smaller companies to which reference has been made--to develop their capacity and ability to tackle overseas markets. It is not a bureaucratic organisation. It is a commercial organisation driven by business and the private sector. It has achieved a great deal in a short time.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene to say that I obviously did not make myself clear. I was saying that we have been informed that if the advisory groups were brought in-house, they would be managed by civil servants as opposed to people from the business sector.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must draw a distinction as regards a secretariat. It does not matter enormously who employs the secretariat; the secretariat of LATAG has the status of home civil servants. That does not mean that they necessarily behave like civil servants even if that were a bad thing to do, which I cannot accept when I look around me. Let me assure your Lordships that it is all business-driven.
	The Wilson Report then recommended that the board of BTI should review the present structure and role of the business advisory groups involved in providing advice and in carrying out promotional activities. When I heard the list of questions about the new structure which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked, I felt sure that I could assure her that all of those were part of the remit of the review which Sir Martin Laing, the vice-chairman of the board, agreed to undertake. The report has been made available in draft to all advisory groups and has been placed in the Printed Paper Office. It is a research-based report which goes into enormous detail. It includes all the considerations which noble Lords quite rightly demanded that it should.
	If I may anticipate my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young--of course, I shall write to her in detail about each of her questions in turn--I found myself nodding each time she raised an issue because I was confident that, when she talks about for example consultation with the Foreign Office, with Caribbean governments and ensuring that there is expertise in the region, they have all been taken fully into account. We cannot therefore be accused, as my noble friend Lord Desai accused us, of having an "umbrella" approach.
	Work is continuing on the options for a revised advisory structure which will result in a more focused activity by advisory groups. But I must stress that no decisions have yet been taken on the future of out-housed secretariats such as LATAG and CARITAG, despite the implication in some of the contributions this evening. That is why I repeat that this is a well-timed debate. It gives an opportunity for what noble Lords say to be taken into account in the final decisions which the board will be taking.
	Full account will be taken of the contribution that out-housed secretariats can make to the delivery of British Trade International's objectives as well as other considerations such as efficiency and value for money. However, I must emphasise that it is not money-led. The £95,000 cost of CARITAG is hardly a sufficient justification for saving a few thousand here or there for what the noble Baroness, Lady Young--I believe wrongly--described as a potential foreign policy disaster. I can assure noble Lords that their views will be given full weight before the final recommendations go to the board and by the board itself in considering the issues debated this evening.
	Meanwhile, whatever the outcome of the review and while it is still in progress, the Government have every intention of continuing with their task of promoting trade with Latin America and the Caribbean. The Minister for Trade, Dick Caborn, launched a three-year promotional campaign last month to assist British companies to develop their business in Mexico. We are in the second year of a similar initiative in Brazil and Mercosur. There are plans to mount a millennium products exhibition this year in several Latin American countries, including Argentina, Brazil and Mexico accompanied by other events seeking to promote Britain as a country at the leading edge of technology, design and innovation. Throughout the region there will continue to be a full programme of supported trade fairs and trade missions which will take many companies into those markets.
	I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we place high importance on our trade with Latin America and indeed with the Caribbean and will not rashly take any steps which would put that at risk.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

House again in Committee on Clause 2.

Lord Haskel: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and
	( ) training suitable to the requirements of employers as expressed by employers and through their training organisations").

Lord Haskel: In moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 31 relates to people under 19 and Amendment No. 41 relates to people over 19, but the subject of the two amendments is the same. Indeed, we touched upon this matter when we were debating Amendment No. 11.
	I remind Members of the Committee that at Second Reading I welcomed this Bill as an important initiative to provide education and training at college and at work. During that debate many speakers, including the Minister, referred to the shortage of skills and education at work and how that was holding back our economy. Everyone agreed that training would make our companies more competitive and most of us agreed that this Bill would help.
	Yet when we turn to look at the Bill, and the main duties of the learning and skills council, there is no recognition of that. Certainly the council is required to secure provision of proper facilities for education and training. Certainly the facilities have to be suitable to the requirements of people and, quite rightly, the Bill implies that the training belongs to the individuals, to the people being educated and trained.
	The purpose is to provide people with the skills and education for personal development at leisure and work, for vocation and non-vocation. The council has to provide facilities for the skills that employers need. They have to be relevant. There can be expensive facilities for training engineers and technicians as well as less expensive ones for training, shall we say, hairdressers and journalists.
	How best can we ensure that the facilities are relevant? It seems to me quite obvious. Surely it is to involve employers and their training organisations. The purpose of this amendment is to put that on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Improving the employability of young people and adults will be a major feature of our new arrangements. We recognise that the training needs of employers, including an adaptable workforce which has the capacity and opportunity to learn new skills, must influence the way in which the council exercises its main duties. We have made it clear that employers will have a major say on the council itself and its local arms, and that it must be responsive to the needs of employers. The local and national council planning arrangements, informed by RDAs, will need to take that on board.
	Employers, therefore, will have plenty of opportunities to ensure that their voice is heard. In particular, national training organisations have already made proposals as to how they intend to form close, practical links with the national and local LSCs to help to ensure that their work is "earthed" in the sectoral training needs. I welcome and very much applaud their ideas.
	However, employers have their own responsibilities for developing and training their employees in the workplace. There is a balance to be drawn between what should be funded by the state and what is the responsibility of employers. We need to recognise that. We welcome the contribution of employers, who spend very substantial amounts in this area.
	We also have to look carefully at the actual effects of these amendments. They would make the council statutorily responsible for all employee training and then leave the judgment of what is necessary to employers and not the council. That goes too far. We expect employers to continue to be responsible for their own workforce training and not expect to substitute state funding for such activity.
	For these reasons, I cannot support the amendments. However, I would like to consider an alternative way of reflecting the point that my noble friend Lord Haskel has made with these amendments. There is a good case for the Bill including a specific reference that the learning and skills council, in performing its duties, should take account of the skill needs of different sectors of employment. Such an amendment would also reflect the important role of NTOs which serve the needs of particular employment sectors. Many Members of the Committee have referred to the important role that they play. With the assurance that I will bring forward an appropriate amendment to reflect this point, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw these amendments today.

Lord Haskel: I am grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that there will be specific reference to the skills and needs of different sectors. I look forward to seeing her amendment. I believe that it will do exactly the same as my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Tope: At Second Reading I drew attention to the differences between Clauses 2 and 3 and the weasel words "sufficient", "adequate" and "reasonable". I promised to come back to the matter and I now keep my promise. In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44 and 50. I believe that Amendment No. 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is partly taken up by my Amendment No. 43. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing his contribution if he wishes to make one.
	As currently drafted, the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 suggests that while provision for 16 to 18 year-olds should meet demand and be of the highest possible quality, that for adults should be dependent on the finances available to the council not only as regards quantity but also quality. Given the commitment to wider participation, it is a case of "never mind the quality, feel the width".
	The volume may vary between provision for those aged between 16 and 19 years and those over 19, but it should always be of the highest quality for both. We reject the distinction between the two. The purpose of Amendment No. 50 in particular is to try to ensure that whatever the difference may have to be in quantity, the quality is adequate to meet the needs of individual learners.
	We are also concerned about the definition of the word "reasonable" in Clause 3. Are the Government able to define it a little more clearly? Do they intend that the word should be backed by guidance as to what it means? For instance, the third report of the skills taskforce argues for an entitlement for 19 to 24 year-olds up to level three and for an entitlement for adults up to level two. In her report the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, argued for an entitlement to level three for all, recognising that that level is often the trigger to independent learning for adults.
	It would be helpful if the Government identified an entitlement to level three for adults as an aspiration to be achieved over time. In the meantime it would certainly be helpful if they could identify minima for what is reasonable provision, without which their national target for participation by adults is unlikely to be achieved.
	Currently there is a fifty-fold difference in range, volume and investment in adult learning between the best and the worst served areas. Without any guidance on what is reasonable, the situation is unlikely to change quickly enough to achieve the aspirations of the White Paper. I hope that the Minister will help us to understand the Government's understanding of the meaning of "reasonable". I beg to move.

Lord Boardman: I shall confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 39 and 42. In Clause 2 there is provision for "proper facilities". In Clause 3 there is provision for "reasonable facilities". The distinction is rather stark. If we wish to establish lifelong learning we do not want to have a cut-off point where at the age of 19 a person moves from one grade to another. Obviously, the grade below that for the age of 19 will include many facilities which will not be available afterwards. We do not wish to proceed from one standard of judgment to a quite different one.
	The meaning of the words "reasonable" and "proper" must have been debated many times in this Chamber. I do not know what the answers have been. However, it appears very strongly to me that proper facilities will be provided up to a certain age but after that they will just be reasonable, which is very unfortunate. There appears to be a conflict with the objective we all have to achieve lifelong learning and teaching.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: I wish to stress generally that I speak for all the Churches in giving strong support for the whole thrust of this Bill. Its major restructuring has been widely welcomed. As a bishop coming from the West Midlands, I particularly welcome the siting of the new council in Coventry.
	It is important that the Bill engages the whole community. I shall be grateful to receive help from the noble Baroness on the meaning of "reasonable" and "proper" in Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. The concern behind this is that the Bill should engage--indeed, we are jealous for it to do so--with the whole community, if the Government are to achieve their objective. Therefore, it is imperative that every encouragement is given to the churches, voluntary organisations and faith communities within the local community. Without further guidance as to what the word "reasonable" means, there could perhaps be a danger of slippage and important partners in this whole process being missed.
	Being rooted in local communities, Churches and faith communities have long experience of the effectiveness of community work and this is well known. However, perhaps it is not so well known that the Churches ecumenically sponsor something called the "Churches' Further Education Beacon Award for Sustainable Community Development". We are delighted that the winning college, Dunstable (announced last November by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, at the annual conference in Harrogate of the Association of Colleges) had worked with the Churches in Luton and Dunstable to offer an innovative carpentry and joinery programme called, New Opportunities and Horizons (NOAH). This programme is a good example--there could be many others--and is attractive to a very wide cross-section of the local community. In this particular scheme, single parents, graduates, homeless people and people with learning difficulties were brought together through the programme in the process of developing new skills.
	The Churches and other faith communities are glad to invest not only their physical plant, but also, as I said earlier when speaking of truancy workers in the Black Country, the energy and commitment of paid and voluntary workers in the community for capacity building. The evidence shows that much of this local activity, though sometimes small-scale, is highly effective in transforming people's life and performance. Therefore, guidance affirming the distinctive contribution of Churches, faith communities and voluntary organisations in developing neighbourhoods would be welcome to the constituency for which I speak. I wonder whether the Minister could help us with this by giving us guidance on this matter, which I have raised in connection with these amendments. I should stress that this is in the broad context of strong support for the Bill.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this series of amendments. Amendments Nos. 39, 42 and 43 would extend to all adults the entitlement that we have provided for young people. They cover the same principles that were explored to some extent by Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. My noble friend Lady Blackstone has already set out the Government's position in respect of the balance between Clauses 2 and 3. However, perhaps I may add something to that response.
	The difference in words between the two clauses is intentional. The distinction between them is as follows. There is an entitlement at the ages of 16 to 19, but no government could enter an absolute guarantee to adults in the same way. This Government are extremely in favour of adult education and their record speaks very highly indeed for itself. However, for any government to pretend that resources were absolutely unlimited and that, therefore, they could do for adults exactly what they were going to do for 16 to 19 year-olds would be foolish; and, indeed, I venture to say, would not be believed by noble Lords and those outside this place.
	I turn now to the meaning of words. I should point out that I am doing my best here, because the meanings of these words may one day be interpreted in the courts of our land--who knows! The word "proper" in Clause 2 means quantity to meet the needs of individuals and of adequate quality; in other words, an entitlement, an objective test. Then we have the word "reasonable". This is the second time within a week that I have been faced with defining or discussing this word. As I said on the previous occasion, anyone who has been involved in the law for any length of time will know that it is tempting to try to define the word "reasonable", but the detail of it is always so difficult. However, I shall do my best.
	In the sense of Clause 3, "reasonable" means that if they are of a quality and quantity that the LSC can provide from its resources--again, an entitlement which applies to those aged 16 to 19--there will be something slightly less for those over 19. I am not talking about an intention not to put funds into adult education--indeed, that would be completely against this Government's intentions--but it is not quite the same. That is why the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 is important.
	Of course we recognise that those needs, abilities and aptitudes do not suddenly change over night on a person's 19th birthday. No one would expect a young person part way through a GNVQ not to be allowed to complete his or her course. Likewise, nothing in these provisions prevents learners continuing their education. My noble friend gave that assurance when she addressed earlier amendments.
	The amendments now before the Committee go further than the earlier ones with the commensurate implications for public spending. For that and other reasons I have attempted to give, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. In short, they seek a commitment that no government could possibly give.

Lord Boardman: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he saying that the word "proper" means that no matter what the consequences are and no matter what the budget may be, those needs will be met? Is he also saying that "reasonable" means that the facilities will be available only if funds happen to be there?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord uses his own words; they are not mine. I was careful in the words that I chose. I prefer to say that there is an "entitlement" for those between 16 and 19 and to say that the LSC will do all that it can in relation to those who are over the age of 19. However, it cannot give to them the entitlement which applies to those between the ages of 16 and 19.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 32, 44 and 50. Improving quality for all learners, whatever their ages and whatever they may be studying, is a priority. That is why quality has been made an integral part of the council's main duties. I contrast that--I hope, gently--with the arrangements made by the previous government for the further education funding councils. There is no reference to quality in relation to the provision to be funded by those bodies. All they are required to do is assess quality; there is no requirement to do anything about it afterwards.
	We know from reports of the inspectorates with responsibility for this key post-16 learning--Ofsted, the FEFC and the TSC--that much of post-16 education and training is of good quality. But there remain too many examples of weak provision. No particular sector is exempt. There are examples of poor quality provision made by private and voluntary providers, sixth forms and further education colleges. We are quite clear that all provision must be at least satisfactory and continuously improving. We want to promote excellence in all post-16 provision. We want to raise standards in post-16 provision, just as we have done in schools.
	We do not make any distinction between different age ranges in our aims for improving quality. Nothing in this Bill requires quality for adults to be lower than that for young people or implies that it should be. Indeed, many providers would find the concept unimaginable and impractical because their provision meets the needs of all age ranges alongside each other. Nor will the common inspection framework be constructed on such an artificial basis. We expect quality to be equally high for all. That is why quality is not separated out as an add-on duty. We say that it must be integral to the core functions of the LSC. I hope I have persuaded Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the distinction between Clause 2 and Clause 3 is intentional. It had never occurred to me that it might be an accident! I rather thought that it probably was intentional. I wanted to draw attention to precisely that. I think I am right in saying that in a former life the Minister was a lawyer, and perhaps still is a lawyer. That may be why he was especially careful in attempting to define the words we were discussing.

Lord Bach: Once a lawyer, always a lawyer!

Lord Tope: I shall resist commenting. The Minister will know more about that than I. Perhaps that is why he was so careful in trying to define the words that we discussed. He was so careful in trying to define "reasonable" that I may not be the only person who is not much wiser than when the debate began. The Minister's former colleagues may test the definition of "reasonable" in years to come.
	I am grateful for the Minister's comments on quality. I am sure they will offer some reassurance as we are all concerned that quality in provision must apply regardless of the age of the person who is receiving the provision. We shall ponder what the Minister has said and the distinctions he has drawn and consider the matter further. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 2, line 17, leave out ("best") and insert ("most cost effective").

Baroness Blatch: I have been thrown completely because I understood that when we discussed the distinction between "reasonable" and "proper" earlier we would receive a reply to that matter with Amendment No. 34. I shall return to the fray as I would have spoken to this group of amendments had I known what the Minister was going to say.
	We are now talking about resources and their use. I return to what I said earlier; namely, that we all, certainly governments, operate in the real world. We all know that there is no area of central or local government spending that is not restricted by the amount of resources available. It is important to ascertain right at the beginning whether there is no restriction as regards the provision in Clause 2 as opposed to the provision in Clause 3. We have tried to ascertain the difference between "proper" and "reasonable". I believe that more honesty is now entering the debate. When responding to the previous group of amendments the Minister mentioned an entitlement. There is no question of flexibility here because so far the Government have not given one inch on that. There is a cut-off point at the age of 19. There is a different obligation as regards those over the age of 19. We all hope that a person will complete a course; it is unlikely that someone will not. However, someone may be "picked up", as it were, at the age of 20, but the council has a different obligation towards such a person as opposed to the age group mentioned in Clause 2.
	Earlier the noble Baroness mentioned the number of young people who will enter further education. There is an absolute obligation under the Bill to provide proper facilities and arrangements for a young person under the age of 19 who requires provision. However, there is no blank cheque available. My noble friend Lord Boardman tried to tease out that point. The council or providers have no blank cheque. However, those under the age of 19 will have the first call on the money that is available. Anyone over the age of 19, whatever their situation, can have only a reasonable expectation of provision funded by the money that is left over. That is the only way the system can work as it was explained by the noble Lord. He said time and time again that for people up to the age of 19 there is an entitlement to provision. Under Clause 3 of the Bill those over 19 have an entitlement to expect only "reasonable" provision, assuming that there is money left in the coffers to provide that.
	The Government cannot say that they will meet everyone's needs and aspirations--I refer also to young people with special needs--if there is to be a distinction as between those under and over the age of 19. I understand that there is no bottomless pit of money available. All governments when in office realise quickly that there are constraints on the amounts of money that can be spent at any level of government. I believe that those over the age of 19 will comprise as many needy cases as among those in the 16 to 19 age group. There will be no opportunity to determine priorities at a local level because under Clause 2 the council will have an obligation to provide an absolute entitlement to 16 to 19 year-olds. Under Clause 3 the needs of those over the age of 19 will be met with the provision of reasonable facilities if there is money left over with which to do that.
	I understand that my noble friend Lord Pilkington has given the Minister notice that he intends to speak to Amendment No. 35 with Amendments Nos. 36 and 158. My Amendment No. 34 to Clause 2 seeks to replace the word "best" with the words "cost effective". I am not sure that anyone knows what "best" means. I believe that the most important concept here is to make the most effective use of resources. I am tempted to seek to insert the words,
	"the most cost effective and the most operationally effective".
	One could have simply "the most effective" or "the most cost effective" if the matter is assessed purely on cost. However, it is not always merely a question of the best value for money, in that operational considerations may also need to be taken into account. However, I believe that it is better to include either the words "the most cost effective" or the,
	"most cost and operationally effective",
	use of the council's resources rather than simply a reference to the "best use of resources". This issue also arises in Clause 3. My Amendment No. 46 seeks to remove the words in Clause 3(3)(d),
	"and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	What do those words mean? Do they refer to wasteful expenditure? Sometimes expenditure can be disproportionate if one has to meet the needs of someone with very special needs. The cost of that is disproportionate when compared to the resources that one might allocate to someone who has no special needs whatsoever and is simply doing a straightforward course which requires no special provision to be made. However, to invite the council to avoid disproportionate expenditure might militate against making complicated provision for someone with multiple disabilities. That is extremely misleading. If one accepts that councils must make the most effective use of resources, that leaves them free to make judgments about where expenditure should be incurred and to make professional judgments about the particular needs of young people that have to be met, even if that involves incurring disproportionate expenditure within an allocated budget.
	I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there is still much anxiety with regard to the cut-off point at the age of 19; the lack of flexibility on the part of the council to make judgments with regard to the needs of those over and under the age of 19; to make its own judgment about whether needs should be met; and to make its own judgment about use of resources, as long as such use is considered by those who judge it externally to be effective use of its funds to meet both the operational and the cost effective restraints upon it. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, will speak to the next grouping of amendments.
	The Bill fulfils our commitment to give an entitlement--I use the word again--to education and training for all young people over compulsory school age up until their 19th birthday. For the first time there will be a unified statutory entitlement for all young people in this age group, rather than the fragmented arrangements that everyone agrees have applied up until now. This will apply to young people whatever route they take after compulsory education--whether it be through a school sixth form, the further education sector or the work-based route.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 34. I shall deal with Amendment No. 35 at a later stage. I am sure that we all expect the LSC to use the public funds placed at its disposal to achieve the maximum benefit for pupils and for students. This provision is concerned with requiring the council to do that. We expect the council to deliver excellent value for money. Value for money is achieved through balancing three different elements, the three "Es"--economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In our view, this is expressed most succinctly through the word "best", although it is possible that other formulations may be used to achieve the same effect. Indeed, the expression "best value" is not unknown to the Committee: regulations with that title were passed through this House 24 hours ago.
	However, the Government have concerns about the particular formulation "most cost effective". Under the previous government we saw the effects of a "pile it high, sell it cheap" approach to further education and the disastrous effects of demand-led funding. It may have been cost effective but the impact on quality and the financial health of colleges was, at the very least, worrying. To focus on cost to the exclusion of quality would be wrong. The Government place great emphasis on the improvement of standards right across the education service. We expect a balanced approach to the use of public money and we believe that the present wording achieves this.
	Turning to Amendment No. 46, apart from fulfilling our commitment to give an entitlement to education and training for all young people over compulsory school age up until their 19th birthday, we have brought together the duty to make education and training available for adults. We expect the council to use the public funds made available to it in the best possible way. However, the potential effect of Amendment No. 46 would be to require the LSC, in making provision of all types, to disregard excessive cost and the economic use of the very substantial public funds to be placed at its disposal.
	Of course the council must ensure that reasonable facilities are available to adults wherever they may be receiving their education and training. That may be expensive. These provisions do not restrict the council's ability to fund expensive provision--we would be concerned if they did, especially if that impacted on the provision needed by the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community--but to disregard value for money in the use of public funds would be wrong, not least because excessive expenditure on one comes only at the expense of the learning opportunities for another or through the LSC exceeding the budget voted to it by Parliament.
	When we consider the matters raised, quite fairly, by the noble Baroness at the outset in moving the amendments--she thought that the discussion would take place on these amendments rather than on the preceding amendment--it is essential to remember that all entitlements--even the entitlement to a free education up until the age of 16-- depend to some extent on the resources available. As the noble Baroness rightly said, with her great experience of both local government and of national government, whoever is in charge of government has to decide what resources are placed in what fields. We repeat that the entitlement will be for 16 to 19 year-olds, but we expect the additional resources we are devoting to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it.
	Money is available for adult education depending on the resources made available by government. This Government, unlike their predecessor, have demonstrated their commitment to adult learning. Perhaps I may give one figure, which will be well known to most of your Lordships. We are spending £2 billion in the financial year 2001-02, up from £1.6 billion in 1998-99. We believe in lifelong learning, but we would be foolish if we expected the Bill to cover every aspect of adult education.

Baroness Blatch: With regard to the last statistic used by the Minister, of course the number of students has gone up so one would expect the expenditure to go up if one is to keep pace with the number of students. The Government have said that not only are there more students since that time but there are to be more this year, next year and through to 2002. Expenditure per student will be static even if more money is put into the budget and, therefore, the quality of provision to the individual student may only be sustained by an injection of even more money.
	The Minister mentioned the words "best value"--which is the argument used by the noble Lord--but the words are not on the page; there it simply says "best use of resources". As to the Minister's criticism that "cost effective" is too narrow, he will remember that when I spoke to the amendments I argued that there is another dimension to this matter; that is, operational effectiveness. I concede that sometimes cost effectiveness is not the only consideration for getting the best possible value for money from a service. Indeed, I lobbied my own government when competitive tendering was introduced and won the argument that we should not be pressed to accept the lowest possible tender on the grounds that the lowest tender might not, in the long term, offer the best value for money and that it would be better to pursue best value. Therefore, if the Minister was hinting that the Government would put into the Bill either "value for money" or "best value" as a counter to my proposed "most cost effective" and/or "operationally effective", I should be more content. I am certainly not content with simply, "best use".
	The Minister kindly returned to the issue of the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable". Again, as I understand it, there will be no flexibility for local authorities under the Bill. The Government have quite rightly taken pride--and I shall not in any way criticise them for this--in the fact that they have strengthened the obligation of providers and the Government to young people up to the age of 19. They have set out in legislation that proper provision will be made for young people up to the age of 19--whoever they are, whatever background they are from and whatever their needs. That is an obligation in the Bill. It is a legitimate entitlement to the individual up to the age of 19.
	I have said before, and I repeat, that there will be limited resources for most public authorities, including the local skills councils. Therefore, the first legitimate call on their moneys will be to meet properly the needs of all young people, including the extra numbers coming into the system that the Minister mentioned earlier. It is only when all those needs have been met that others may be considered. Even someone with severe needs who is post-19 cannot have his needs met until the outstanding needs of anyone under the age of 19 have been met.
	We have been looking for two kinds of flexibility. One concerns the line between under 19 and over 19. We seek to allow some flexibility, especially for people who, for one reason or another, continue mainstream education after the age of 19. We seek also some flexibility to allow local authorities determination over their obligations to young people. Otherwise, the needs of someone just under the age of 19 who has all the wherewithal to find accommodation for further training and education outside the system may be met, while those of someone over 19 with extreme needs will not be met simply because the provision would incur disproportionate expenditure.
	The Minister's answer on disproportionate expenditure simply did not stand up. There will be disproportionate expenditure on some students and rightly so, because the expenditure needed in order to meet their needs adequately will be considerable. Either normal or even below normal expenditure will be spent on others because they have the wherewithal or they have done it on their own or their needs are small. That kind of flexibility at local level is important.
	If the Minister has said his last word in saying that the best term that can be mustered--I return to my criticisms--is "best use" and if "best value", or "most cost effective" plus some accommodation for "operational effectiveness" or "value for money" cannot be included, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 34.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 90.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("resources") to end of line 18.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: In moving this amendment, as I have arranged with the Minister, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36 and other amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has said that he will listen to my remarks on Amendments No. 158. I confess an interest: I discussed the amendment with my union, the National Association of Head Teachers, and to some extent it reflects its views on the Bill.
	I return to a discussion in the early stages of this Committee. My amendment is a statement of principle. I quote my noble friend Lord Bridgeman in saying that it could guide judicial reviews.
	I and other Members of the Committee are concerned about the future of school sixth forms under the new arrangements. I remind the Committee that sixth forms constitute around 60 to 70 per cent of the arrangements for 16 to 17 year-olds.
	In the past, the controversial issue of closing a school sixth form involved the local authorities, which were by their very nature influenced by public opinion. Further, many local councillors were also governors of the school. Therefore, there was a direct interest between the local council and the schools under discussion.
	The problem is that the direct influence of the local council is now less, both as a result of the recent Education Act, which gave great powers to the adjudicator, and also because of the extensive powers given to the new learning and skills councils, nationally and locally, particularly in the matter of money to be allocated. They are now allocating money to the sixth forms, albeit through the local education authority. Therefore, the general guidance that is given to these new and powerful bodies is of great importance.
	At present, Clause 2(3)(d), in general guidance, states that the council must:
	"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
	That is the essence of the guidance, which would stand up if there were a judicial review of the closure of a sixth form. My Amendment No. 36 widens that guidance--I remind the Committee (for the third time) that this is to be taken into account by a court--to include the duty to,
	"promote choice and diversity in the type of facilities available to persons and take account of the desirability of ensuring that persons are able to access such facilities locally and easily".
	To give one example, it may mean that consideration may have to be given to small rural sixth forms, which are not always inadequate. I attended a small sixth form--a history set--in which there were four people. But that school, with its small sixth form, managed to get quite a large number of people scholarships and exhibitions to Oxford and Cambridge and was very effective. The fact that something is small does not mean that it is inadequate. My amendment means that the LSCs will have to bear these matters in mind. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the great influence of LSCs in the allocation of money and in many other ways, it is of enormous importance that guidance other than in relation to expenditure and practicality is borne in mind when, for example, it closes a sixth form or decides that in a rural area everyone should go to a college, which economically may be more effective.
	The amendment proposes that the LSC bears in mind distance; accessibility; the part that the sixth form plays in the local community; the outside activities that it provides, for example music and so on; the fact that many people between the ages of 16 and 19 may be lost in the larger environment of the college; and, finally--I repeat a point that I made at Second Reading--that good teachers may be attracted to such a school in a rural area just because there is a sixth form.
	I was very grateful that, following Second Reading, the Minister wrote a letter in which she assured my noble friend Lord Baker and other noble Lords that other bodies would be consulted in this matter, such as the school organisation committee. The Minister also referred to the powers of the Secretary of State. However, the Minister is aware that this House is mistrustful of guidelines and offers by the executive of safeguards of this kind. We saw an example of that last night. Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that there is some guidance on the face of the Bill which can be pleaded when the LSC decides these matters. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who has much more experience of these matters, said that these matters were terribly important in the context of judicial review. We all know that executives hate judicial reviews. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The Committee appreciates the noble Lord's concerns about sixth forms in schools which he expressed during Second Reading. I re-read his speech this morning. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made quite clear--I repeat it now--the value that he attaches to the best school sixth forms and that nothing we do should jeopardise them. He has also made it clear that the Government should protect the funding of school sixth forms in real terms as long as numbers do not fall. However, we believe that the potential effect of Amendment No. 35 is to require the learning and skills council to disregard excessive cost in making provision of all types, not just in sixth forms, and hinder the economic use of the very substantial public funds to be placed at its disposal. The council must ensure that proper facilities are available to all young people, wherever they may receive their education and training, and that they are suitable to their requirements. However, to impair the effective use of public funds would be wrong, not least because excessive expenditure on one person could come only at the expense of the learning opportunities for others, or through the LSC exceeding the budget voted to it by Parliament. That attempts to deal with Amendment No. 35. While appreciating the concerns of the noble Lord, we say that his amendment is not acceptable.
	As regards Amendment No. 36, to which he has also just spoken, our arrangements for 16 to 19 year-old education are extremely diverse and already provide a wide range of opportunities at local level. Young people can study in further education and tertiary colleges, sixth-form colleges, school sixth forms or in employment. There are over 400 colleges in the further education sector, including over 100 sixth-form colleges. There are about 1,800 schools with sixth forms. There are some 3,000 other providers currently funded through the TECs. Nothing in this Bill will restrict this diversity, which we expect to retain in order to match the varying needs of young people.
	Nevertheless we recognise the need to ensure that we have the right balance and mix of provision for young people. Our proposals are intended to open up new opportunities for them, to ensure that we maximise participation in learning, improve retention and ensure that provision is responsive to the needs of individuals and employers. That is why the local councils of the LSC in England will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-16 provision in their areas and the resources to deliver this. It will remain open to LEAs and other promoters to bring forward proposals not only for the creation of new sixth forms, if they judge there to be a need, but also for new LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions. We are also removing obstacles to collaboration between colleges and schools so that schools can draw upon the expertise which colleges have to offer, particularly in making vocational provision.
	Our new arrangements are intended to support and encourage a pluralistic and diverse education and training system. How could it be otherwise, if provision is to meet the needs of our young people? I hope that those remarks will go some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tope: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may comment. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for raising the issue. I know he has a great concern about the future of school sixth forms. I know, too, that he is not the only one to have that concern, and I welcome the assurances that the Government have given and continue to give. I accept entirely that they mean what they say.
	It is for the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to say, but I think the purpose of his second amendment is not to challenge that there is choice and diversity now, but rather to ensure that there remain choice and diversity in the provision of post-16 education. In that we would strongly support him. I particularly welcome, as the Minister has just said, the provision for collaboration between school sixth forms and FE colleges--collaboration rather than competition--that has existed up to now and, I have to say, I believe has been in the worst rather than the best interests of the learners.
	I was less happy with the response to Amendment No. 35. If it were to be carried, Clause 2(3)(d) would read,
	"make the best use of the Council's resources".
	The Minister seemed to be saying that that would then mean that the LSC could disregard excessive costs. I wonder whether he could explain that. Perhaps I am just being stupid, but could he explain how making the best use of the council's resources would enable it at the same time to disregard excessive costs? It seems to me that making the best use of the council's resources means that you must have regard to excessive costs, however you might choose to define them. It seems to me, especially given the definitions we have had earlier today, that the inclusion of the words which the noble Lord is seeking to delete actually encourages his suspicions and fears, rather than discourages them.
	I hope that I have given the Minister enough time to explain to me how making best use of the council's resources is consistent with disregarding excessive costs, which apparently he thinks that it would then be able to do.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to continue that point. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was unable to support us in the Lobby if only to give us another chance to return on another day to what is or is not best use of resources. An auditor will have to judge the council's spending against the word "best". In whose view is it judged best? Is it that of the Government, the national council, or the local council? In that case it is its own local independent judgment and may conflict with the view of the Secretary of State.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tope, used the word "excessive". The arguments apply equally to "disproportionate". There will be legitimate uses of excessive expenditure or disproportionate expenditure which would be approved by Secretaries of State, the national council, local councils and all of us. The idea that they are not allowed to incur disproportionate expenditure is a real constraint. The word "best" needs qualifying by the word "value" or some reference to operational effectiveness. That expression is jargonistic and is used by management consultants but it refers to the best possible cost effective service. The word "best" does not express that.

Lord Bach: The word "disproportionate" does not rule out expensive expenditure, if I may use that phrase. However, on the face of the Bill it obliges the LSC to take into account wasteful expenditure. That seems to us a sensible precaution. I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, makes such a fuss about it. It seems a perfectly ordinary, normal provision to put on the face of the Bill.

Lord Tope: I am pleased to have caused the Minister a little surprise at this time of night. I made no reference to the word "disproportionate". I picked the noble Lord up on his use of the words "excessive costs". The Minister said that if the amendment were passed it would mean that the LSC could disregard excessive cost. My question may be too simple but it is straightforward. How is it consistent that the LSC can disregard excessive costs--I refer to the Minister's words--while at the same time making the best use of the council's resources? If I am being stupid--although I see nods around me which suggest that I am not the only stupid person in the Chamber--perhaps the Minister (who has had several notes passed from the box) will explain what he means.

Lord Bach: I shall try again to explain the issue to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Amendment No. 35 would remove the words that appear in the 1992 Act. They occasioned comment then that they might prevent further education councils from funding provision. The then government spokesman--it was not me; nor was it the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but someone in government at that time--made the following statement: that the intention was,
	"expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for in regard to the discharge of the main duties".
	The spokesman continued:
	"It does not prohibit provision that is needed but rather provision that is unnecessary".
	I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

Lord Rix: If it is a subjective view of the council, does it mean that if a person with a learning disability was incurring a great deal of excess expenditure, that would not be considered disproportionate to the effect that that education would have on that person?

Lord Bach: As so often, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is quite right; that is what I am saying here. Such expenditure, simply because it happened to be very expensive, would not immediately be considered to be disproportionate. Proportionality is the clue to this issue.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I believe that there has been a disproportionate use of words here. When responding to the previous amendment, the Minister made it quite clear that his definition of "best value" excluded disproportionate expenditure. It now seems to me that it is unnecessary for these words to be included and that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is entirely correct.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I thank the Minister for his reply and also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lady Blatch for their support. It perplexes me, the innocent that I am, that the executive puts forward the most noble opinions from the Front Bench, but when we poor fellows in Opposition ask for those opinions to be put onto the face of the Bill, it will argue over how many angels can dance on a pin. All I am asking for here is allocation of resources and care for diversity but, like the Government's predecessors--I was not a member of the previous government, but all executives are alike--pinning them down causes them terror. However, I shall be back to harry the Government. Believe me, the next amendment will be even nastier. But for the moment I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
	[Amendments Nos. 39 to 49 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Encouragement of education and training]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("appropriate to their needs").

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that I stopped the flow. I shall speak only to Amendment No. 51, the first in this grouping. It adds to the end of Clause 4(a), "appropriate to their needs".
	I was reminded of a young man I met not long ago in the north-east, an area in which I was involved as a Minister, who said to me, "If they send me on that course one more time, I will scream". He was not able to get a job, mainly because in his area there were no jobs available to him. However, he kept being sent on courses that were of no interest to him and that were not furthering his skills and aptitude.
	What that young man needed to secure one of the jobs available reasonably near to where he lived were skills matched to the needs of the skills requirements in that area. It was not the case that there were no jobs, only that the young man was not being equipped and fitted for those jobs. The courses that he wanted to take were not made available to him. If we are to make sense of the Bill, then the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training--there is no argument about that. However, if it is to be fruitful and to properly equip young people for the particular jobs available in their area, that education and training need to be appropriate to their needs. I believe that this is a simple amendment. It is a totally cost-free amendment for the Government and it would be quite heartening if it could be accepted. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise from these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her amendment. I endorse entirely what she has said. There are many occasions when people are sent, so to speak, on inappropriate courses, and I believe that it is useful that we have the word "appropriate" on the face of the Bill.
	I should like to speak to Amendment No. 52, which is a probing amendment. It refers to "qualifying learning accounts" or what in common parlance are now known as "individual learning accounts". We shall consider those later in the Bill under Clauses 93 and 94. I should like to raise this point because, as envisaged in the various Green and White Papers that have preceded the Bill and above all perhaps in the report on further education by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the idea was that contributions would be made into such accounts by the three partners to post-16 training and education; namely, the individual, his or her employer and the Government.
	This amendment seeks to point out the kind of framework which the Government are considering setting up for the individual learning accounts. Do they envisage that employers should finance training via individual learning accounts or more directly? Is payment to be made to the individual? If employers are to make payments into such individual learning accounts, what about the Government? Will they, as another partner or stakeholder, also pay into such individual learning accounts?

Baroness David: I associate myself with these amendments. I believe that it is important not only that we provide what is appropriate for their needs but also that young people themselves can have a say in what they believe is appropriate.

Lord Boardman: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 54 which is being discussed in this group of amendments. The amendment seeks to,
	"encourage persons to provide post-16 education and training".
	Under the Bill as it stands, the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training, encourage employers to participate and encourage employers to contribute to the costs. It leaves out the potential field of the valuable assistance that can be received from people who are neither employees, nor individuals undergoing training, nor employers who are contributing to costs. I believe that they form an important part.
	That is particularly so in days when learning markets are changing so rapidly--when the whole issue of e-commerce and so on can open up vast opportunities. It is a vast, expanding market for learning skills. It may be right to encourage the assistance that one can receive from third parties outside who will welcome a group of young people to be trained in those fields. They should not be overlooked. Therefore, we should encourage them. My amendment proposes to encourage them in the list of those who participate.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, both of which are supported by the TEC National Council. The purpose of Amendment No. 55, which adds the point to,
	"encourage links between education and business",
	is to draw attention to what could be a great increase in demand for new and innovative ways of educating people. We are all aware of the need to build a demand structure within education so that the right business opportunities can respond to that demand. Quite clearly, the opportunities for investing in infrastructure which relate to the supply of information, learning and teaching will be important, as will be the use of the new technologies that are now available. I believe that we should consider an overhaul of the rigidities which are now often within the system. The learning market is open to a whole range of new opportunities.
	So the purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to what could be an exciting development in education, particularly for the people we are talking about. It also encourages business and education to come together so that business can be encouraged to provide new opportunities.
	The other amendment draws attention to the role that employers can play and inserts after the word "persons" in line 26 the words "including employers". It is important to keep businessmen involved in such matters and they should be supportive of the new councils. We have to understand the role that employers can play in teaching. Many people learn from their first employers the skills which give them a successful life. Those employers teach and train them effectively and create the disciplines and the excitement of working in new areas. The role that employers can play, have played and will continue to play if given the right encouragement in the new arrangements needs to be recognised.

Lord Bach: I turn first to Amendment No. 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Our visions of a lifelong learning society will require us to overcome our nation's history of low levels of demand for education and training, both from individuals--particularly adults--and from employers--especially small firms. Often that is because people simply do not recognise the links between learning and skills on the one hand and economic success and personal fulfilment on the other.
	The clause places a specific duty on the LSC to promote lifelong learning by encouraging people to undertake education and training. It is self-evident that the LSC will not succeed in that challenge if it encourages people to undertake learning which is not relevant to their needs. Indeed, it would not be reasonable for the LSC to promote learning which was anything but appropriate to the needs of individuals.
	I should point out that the Bill already addresses the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The core duties of the learning and skills council under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill refer to the provision of education and training
	"suitable to the requirements of"
	those who receive it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press this amendment.
	Turning to Amendment No. 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I can assure her that the Government see individual learning accounts as one of the initiatives that will encourage employers to build on their existing levels of investment in learning and development. Employers will be key in promoting learning accounts to their employees and will be encouraged, where appropriate, to contribute to their learning accounts and to provide advice, guidance and other workplace support.
	In answer to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, I point out that the framework is entirely voluntary. We shall encourage employers to contribute to learning accounts, but we shall not force them.
	Clause 10 sets out the roles that the LSC will or may have in relation to individual learning accounts, including its power to promote learning accounts with individuals, employers, and other key stakeholders. Learning accounts are only one of many strands of this Government's vision of a lifelong learning society where responsibility for learning is shared, among others, by government, employers and individuals. Therefore, in this case we believe that it is unnecessary, indeed inappropriate, to specify learning accounts in Clause 4.
	I turn to Amendment No. 54, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I make it clear that the LSC will support and develop the provision of post-16 learning of all types. Its aim will be to develop a network of well-managed and innovative providers, capable of identifying and responding to the needs of learners and employers.
	For the first time we will have a single planning and funding system which brings together previously separate strands of provision. Through the local learning partnerships we will encourage all providers to work together more effectively for the benefit, we hope, of individuals and employers.
	Local LSCs will also promote imaginative arrangements with providers, designed for example to meet the needs of particular groups such as women returners and learners from ethnic minorities. That will include the greater use of on-line learning through the University for Industry.
	Those are all important objectives of the new system. But they are encompassed already by the LSC's duty to make proper and reasonable provision and by its powers to fund providers. We argue that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is not needed in the circumstances of the explanation that I have attempted to give.
	Finally, I turn to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. First, Amendment No. 55. We made clear in the prospectus that improving the links between business and schools will be yet a further way that the local LSCs will drive up the availability and quality of provision for young people. We have said that we want to build on the excellent work of EBPs and other local organisations to encourage more businesses and the wider community to support schools, working closely with local learning partnerships.
	In accordance with the Government's wish to further strengthen those links, Clause 8 of the Bill gives the LSC powers to secure provision of work experience for those in the last two years of compulsory schooling and those in post-compulsory education up to the age of 19; and also to provide for educational business links for young people in education or training from any age up to the age of 19. Linked to that, Clause 4 places a duty on the LSC to encourage employers to participate in the delivery of post-16 education and training.
	Secondly, I turn to Amendment No. 56. Clause 5 details the main powers of the LSC, but only addresses in broad terms the range of activities that the LSC can fund. This again, if I may coin a phrase, is intentional. We do not believe that it would be helpful to specify a particular group or organisation as it would be an impossible task to capture in legislation the full range of organisations that could contribute to what we hope will become the learning age. Even if that were feasible, it might constrain the LSC in encouraging new providers to come forward.
	Important issues have been raised by this series of amendments. We believe they are adequately addressed in our proposals. Thus, the amendment, although welcome and subject to a good short debate, is not needed. We invite the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch to withdraw it.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, let me say that in relation to Amendment No. 55 my point in regard to business and education was not just in terms of relationships, working together and so on. It related also to the contribution that business can make to education in stimulating more innovative ways of using new technologies to educate people that they may not be employing themselves, but which they can develop with others. I did not feel that the noble Lord addressed that part of my point.

Lord Bach: The Government accept absolutely that it is a crucial and key role for business to play and I suspect it is one that it has begun to play already.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for referring back to the reference in both Clauses 2 and 3 in relation to education which is,
	"suitable to the requirements of such persons".
	There is little difference between that and "appropriate to their needs". I accept therefore that the Minister makes a good point.
	But there is another nuance about the need to be a young person. Sometimes what may be suitable for them may not be what is appropriate in terms of not just their own needs but of getting them into the workforce. Some young people may want to do one thing, but it may not be the best kind of training if somebody is trying to guide them into the workforce. Most of us are not concerned about people who can make up their own minds. We are concerned about people who are not making appropriate decisions for themselves.
	I do not argue with the Minister about the words, "appropriate for their needs". I feel that phrase would have helped because it would reinforce the point that the council, when encouraging young people, should ensure that whatever education and training they go into are appropriate to helping them into the workforce. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 3, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education and training and all support services covering transition").

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: In moving Amendment No. 53, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 131 and 161. These amendments have common purpose; namely, to strengthen the duty of the learning and skills councils to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled learners. Amendment No. 53 applies to the learning and skills council, Amendment No. 131 applies to local school councils and Amendment No. 161 to Wales. I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He is happy that we should keep Wales in an English group for the sake of progress.
	The amendments are seen as necessary by the Disability Consortium on Post-16 Education and Training, which consists of Mencap, RADAR and Skill among others--I mention Skill because I have the honour to be its president and therefore have an interest to declare. Why are they necessary? I welcome the fact that the new council must have regard,
	"to the needs of persons with learning difficulties",
	in Clause 13, but the phrase suggests a reactive rather than a proactive duty. It is the same wording that appeared in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. But it does not reflect the many changes that have happened since then with regard to disability issues.
	In 1992 the legislation was a big step forward. But it still allows for different colleges to make varied provision for disabled students. There are still instances where disabled people do not gain access to further studies because their local college does not provide it. That is particularly true of students with more severe impairments. If the amendments are accepted, the new bodies will be required to ensure that all the organisations they funded were actively working towards ensuring equality of access to education and training. An awareness of the needs of disabled learners would have to inform their planning, delivery and training. The change in wording would bring the learning and skills council in line with a key recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force; that is, that the public sector should have a statutory duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people in the provision of services.
	At a meeting last week with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her officials, which was welcome, she said that this duty would be better placed in the forthcoming disability and education legislation. But I have a number of concerns in that regard. First, since the legislation has not yet been written we do not know that it will include this duty. I do not know whether the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bach, can confirm that it will be written in such a way. Secondly, while we have been told that the new disability and education Bill will be introduced this Session, about which I am delighted, we have been given no indication of a timescale for implementation. It therefore seems appropriate that the duty to promote should be included in this Bill, which does have a timescale.
	But most important of all, the definition of "learning difficulty" and "disability" in Clause 13, on page 7, is rightly a definition which focuses on a person's ability to access learning. It is a wider definition than the more medical one in the disability discrimination legislation. It is wider even if the recommendations of the taskforce for changes to that legislation are implemented. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a slightly more encouraging response than that given at the meeting or that the Government will agree to think about the matter and perhaps discuss it further. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. It encourages the distribution of information. I refer to a speech that I made earlier about information that students require which helps them to get through their tasks. It also helps the colleges to take the right action. Half of the problems in this field arise from the fact that people do not know what to do. They spend hours scrabbling through regulations and saying, "It can be done like that. That is quite easy". Everyone in this particular field must have 100 similar stories.
	It may well be that the noble Baroness will say that this matter is dealt with in other legislation. It would not hurt to have it in all legislation. We talk about joined-up government and trying to get something which is coherent across the whole provision for education. I hope that we can achieve something here. I am addressing this matter because so often it has not been possible to access the information and people do not know what they are supposed to do. Repeating it will not hurt.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Baroness took exception to the fact that I thought it unfortunate that we were unable to deal with young people with special educational needs at Second Reading of the Bill. The argument was put by the noble Baroness that a separate and free-standing Bill will deal with those issues. But they are inextricably linked with this Bill, hence many of the amendments today will, I am sure, also be addressed in the new Bill.
	As one reads the present Bill, whatever the background of any young person or their learning needs up to the age of 19, they will have an entitlement. There will be obligation to provide properly for them. We have argued about those over the age of 19 where it becomes possible to make reasonable provision.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, is that there is a great deal of nervousness. There is some evidence that some providers are not meeting their obligations. There is a great deal in this Bill which is otiose in the sense that it should be taken as read, whereas many other issues are not. Practical reassurance would be given to people who will know that just as someone who does not have learning difficulties will have an entitlement under Clause 1 of the Bill, it is very important that they should be conscious of the fact that they are included. The word "inclusive" is much used nowadays. It is appropriate that they should be included both for an entitlement to proper provision up to the age of 19 and a reasonable provision within the resource constraints if they are over that age. It would be a good thing to put that on the face of the Bill. It is a costly option, but it is an entitlement.

Baroness Blackstone: Identifying and meeting the needs of disabled people will be one of the core activities of the LSC and the CETW. I underline the fact that it will not be just a peripheral concern. The Bill places the councils under a duty to report to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales every year on both the progress each has made in the provision of post-16 education and training for people with disabilities and their future plans for such provision. Councils will also be under a duty to have particular regard to the needs of all persons with learning difficulties and, where they are under the age of 25, they must secure boarding accommodation for them where they cannot otherwise make adequate provision.
	We have paid very close attention to the need to improve the transition of people with special educational needs from school to other forms of post-16 learning. Where a person with a statement of special educational needs intends to leave school to continue in post-16 education and training, the Bill makes new provision for an assessment of his or her learning needs. Should a young person's learning difficulties become apparent only after leaving school, he or she may also benefit from such an assessment up to the age of 19.
	The new ConneXions service, launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week, will have a key role in advising and supporting the transition in England. It will participate in the transitional reviews of all young people with statements of special educational needs which are undertaken by LEAs when detailed consideration of what post-16 provision would best meet their needs begins.
	The new arrangements will ensure that transition planning for all those with statements of special educational needs starts at 14 and involves all local partners, the young persons themselves and their parents or carers, together with the local LSC. The LSC and the CETW will be under a duty to take account of such assessments in deciding what provision would best meet that person's needs. As I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, this is a very considerable step forward from the present situation.
	None the less, I fully recognise and share the wish of Members of the Committee to ensure that learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities receive the support that they need to succeed in post-16 education. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made this evening. I shall think further about whether placing the LSC under a duty to promote equality of opportunity would be helpful in addition to the measures already contained in the Bill, which I have just described. I hope to return at a later stage with an amendment. With that assurance, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their powerful support. I also thank the Minister for her reply, which became progressively more encouraging. I am most grateful for what the Minister said and look forward to seeing her amendment. I imagine that we shall be allowed to see her amendment before the next stage. I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments No. 54 and 55 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Provision of financial resources]:
	[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 3, line 43, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").

Baroness Blackstone: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. I should also point out that I shall be referring to the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lady David.

Baroness Blatch: I should point out here that, for a reason beyond my ken, there is a typographical glitch or simply an error in my Amendment No. 59. My instruction for this amendment was to insert the words "and guidance". Therefore, I should be most obliged if the Minister could take it in that spirit. I believe that the same applies to Amendment No. 89, which is also tabled in my name.

Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying what her amendments are meant to say.
	The amendments in this group all concern the powers of the LSC and the CETW in relation to the funding of information, advice and guidance services. We launched a new initiative last year to develop these services at local level, boosted by a new investment of £54 million over three years. Over time, our aim is to ensure that adults everywhere can find the support that they need to make better choices about learning and about careers. As we announced in Learning to Succeed, we intend that responsibility for planning and funding these services should lie with the LSC.
	The amendments standing in my name clarify the powers of the LSC and of the CETW in the area of information, advice and guidance. They do so in two ways. First, the amendments make clear that the LSC will have the power to fund the provision of "guidance"--as well as "information and advice"--about education, training and connected matters. This is not simply a question of semantics. To practitioners in this field the terms "information", "advice" and "guidance" have well-established and precise meanings. In essence, they describe different levels of engagement between a professional adviser and a client.
	It may be helpful if I give the Committee some concrete illustrations of the differences between the three terms. Let us take the example of an adult who wished to take a course in, say, horticulture. "Information" would simply tell that client what learning opportunities were available in his or her locality in the general discipline of horticulture. "Advice" would typically involve a short discussion with a professional adviser. The adviser would be able to discuss with the client, for example, which courses might be most suitable and what entry requirements might apply, as well as to "signpost" the client on to further sources of advice. "Guidance" would be an altogether more involved process, where the adviser might encourage the client to think through his or her motives for wishing to pursue a course in horticulture, to reflect on exactly what they hoped to gain from it and to relate this to their wider plans for career development.
	We want the LSC to have the power to fund all these different types of provision. My noble friend Lady David raised the point with me at Second Reading and I am pleased, with these amendments, to be able to put the Government's position beyond doubt.
	The amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady David would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. I believe that this is also the case now--in the light of the correction that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just made--with regard to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	I return to the amendments of my noble friend Lady David, which would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. That would mean that the LSC would be able to fund only organisations that were able to provide all three of these types of provision. I hope that the Committee will agree that such a change would not be sensible. We want as many organisations as possible to be involved in the provision of information, advice and guidance at a local level, including community and voluntary organisations, which are particularly well placed to reach out to socially disadvantaged people and to provide a high quality service at the grass roots.
	Insisting that any organisations which the LSC funds must be providers of guidance, as well as of information and advice, would risk squeezing out precisely these organisations. That is not a change that we would want to see. I wrote to my noble friend Lady David after the Second Reading debate to address her concerns and make these points. I hope that my reiteration of the arguments here today will convince her that her concerns are unfounded and that she does not need to press her amendments.
	The second effect of the Government's amendments would be to make clear that the LSC would have the power to fund information, advice and guidance about employment, as well as about education and training. This is an important clarification. Since the beginning of the current financial year, my department has been developing through local learning partnerships a publicly funded information, advice and guidance service for adults. That service--for which we intend the LSC to be responsible--is certainly intended to help adults make better choices about learning. The consequences of the wrong choices about learning--both for the individual and the taxpayer--can be quite serious. As we expect the number of adults involved in learning to increase significantly over the next few years, there is obviously a sound argument for ensuring that they have good access to reliable advice on the subject.
	However, it is also important that the service should offer support to adults in their decisions about careers. Changes in the labour market and in the nature of work mean that people can expect to change their job much more frequently during their lifetime. That is, of course, one of the major influences on the demand for learning among adults, as all of us need to update our skills continuously through life. Therefore we want adults to have access to information, advice and guidance about learning and work and, perhaps most critically, about the relationship between the two.
	For all these reasons, it is important that the LSC's funding power in this area is not too narrowly drawn and that it should extend to information, advice or guidance about employment as well as about learning. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: I should inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 59.

Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for what she has done in this matter, which goes back to Second Reading. She has been extremely obliging and helpful. At Second Reading I said:
	"I hope that the Minister will accept an amendment to add "guidance" to the phrase ... If that cannot be agreed, as I hope that it will, can the Minister assure us that the terminology in the Bill includes access to an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser, which is what "guidance" means in this context?".--[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 916.]
	It is important to know what "guidance" means in this context. It is not absolutely obvious to any casual reader.
	When my noble friend wrote to me and said that she was tabling an amendment to put "guidance" into the Bill I was extremely grateful. But then I was slightly disappointed when I saw that it said "or guidance" when I had hoped it would say "and guidance". I wrote to her and pointed out this matter, and I received a convincing reply in the letter that she wrote to me on 1st February.
	I have tabled the amendment again because I want the Minister to explain to the Committee exactly why "or" was right and "and" was wrong. I hope she will repeat for the benefit of the Committee and to record the point in Hansard the reasons for this. I shall not be pressing my amendment. I tabled it only to draw out her response. I think that she has probably already given it.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I was not concentrating enough, but I was concerned about "all". Certainly in my amendments I had intended it to be "and guidance". I note that in Amendment No. 87, which stands in the name of the Minister, the words "advice or guidance" appear. It would be helpful when the Minister responds--without taking too much of the Committee's time--if she could give an explanation of that.
	Although the Minister, in moving the amendment, was very helpful--it is clear that there has been a very positive response to the Second Reading--one point was not covered in regard to the role of the advisory service under the new arrangements. There is some concern about what its role will be, how it will work in practice, and what will be the practical arrangements for moving from the existing system to the new arrangements.
	As has been said, the term "advice about educational training or connected matters" is inadequate. It should be more than mere information. We know that many people are given only information and then left wallowing and wondering what on earth they should make of it. Too many people need their hands holding at that point, and for some young people who drop out of mainstream education very often it is the key point at which they could have been helped. Their problems might have been resolved if they had had proper guidance at that time.
	So many people will require more than information. Their interests, their aptitudes and their skills need to be properly identified under a more guided and, if I may say so, independent and objective approach, without being over- prescriptive or dictatorial, in order to match their need for learning and working opportunities.
	The Careers Service National Association has in fact suggested some definitions for "Information", "Advice" and "Professional guidance". I should like to place them on the record because they are worth studying. First:
	"Information refers to data on learning and work opportunities conveyed through printed matter, audio visual materials or computer software, or through information officers in careers services or helpline services such as Learning Direct.
	Advice refers to providing an immediate response to the needs of clients who present an enquiry or reveal a need that requires more than a straightforward information response. It is usually limited to helping with the interpretation of information, and with meeting needs already clearly understood by the client, and may or may not include signposting to a guidance interview where a more in-depth response can be provided.
	Professional guidance"--
	this point has been touched on by the Minister--
	"reflects an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser which helps clients to explore a range of options, to relate information to their own needs and circumstances, and to make decisions about their career ie their progression in learning and/or work. It may or may not include psychometric assessment.
	There also needs to be an indication of the criteria the LSC will use when contracting out services to provide career information, advice and guidance to ensure that the service is delivered by people who are appropriately qualified--the Institute's Register of Guidance Practitioners could be a useful quality instrument here".
	That is advice from the Careers Service National Association. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to say something definitive about the role of the present Careers Service under the new arrangements.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am relieved to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is adequately satisfied that "advice or guidance" means the same as "advice and guidance" because, on the face of it, it does not sound like the same thing. I am concerned not only for the reasons explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but also for the adult guidance services where that provision is of initial key importance if the Government's concern to widen participation is to be successfully achieved.
	The Guidance Council has identified the key elements of guidance. "Information or advice" does not cover the range of activities adequately. The omission of the word "guidance" from the text here is a key concern because the result will be that the local learning and skills councils will consider that they are unable to fund the guidance activities and, if the provision is "advice or guidance", they will limit themselves to advice and not provide guidance. It is important that we understand from the Minister precisely what role is seen here for adult guidance services; how extensive or discreet those services are to be; and how much continuity may be maintained. What is the role of guidance services within the local learning partnerships? I should be glad for some clarification.

Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for what she has done in encouraging the Government to bring forward the amendments. I certainly believe that the Bill has been improved as a result. She asked about guidance and I believe that I have already said a little about the differences between information, advice and guidance, as have the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Blatch. Guidance is of course a much more in-depth approach than simply providing information or advice. The Government intend greatly to extend services in that area as a consequence of the Bill. They are committed to improving opportunities for adults and to ensuring that they are placed in the kind of jobs that they have the potential to take up and pursue in a fulfilling way.
	Until now the Careers Service has had a rather limited role in adult guidance because it has been so focused on young people, but in future, as a result of the ConneXions service--by which that part of the Careers Service's work will be taken on by a new organisation--we hope that there will be a great improvement in the availability of really good careers advice, information and guidance to adults who are either seeking a job or are dissatisfied with their present job and want advice on how to improve their position. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for setting out the views of the Careers Service National Association on this issue. They sound extremely sensible.
	Perhaps I may return to the more specific question about "and" and "or". In my letter to my noble friend I said that if we have on the face of the Bill "and guidance" the LSC would only be able to provide funds in circumstances where an organisation was providing all three elements of information, advice and guidance to individuals. It could not provide funds simply for, say, the promotion of information about education and that would cut out from local partnerships those many small community and voluntary organisations that may not be able to deliver in depth guidance but have an important role in reaching out to hard-to-help groups. I am sure that all those who have spoken would want us to be able to help such groups. So, in fact, "or" is an improvement on "and", but I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is not the same. It is an improvement for the purposes which all of us who have spoken in the debate want to pursue. I hope that that clarifies the issues that have been raised.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she refer to the role of the Careers Advisory Service? It is concerned about where it will fit into the new arrangements.

Baroness Blackstone: I do not think I can add a great deal to what I have said other than that there will be a continued role. It will continue to be funded and, as I said earlier, we see this as an expanding role.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that, but I wish to press the noble Baroness a little more. Will those who presently offer careers advice, information and guidance be the same people? Will they have a new remit or will they be given the remit under the ConneXions and under the new arrangements for advice, information and guidance to young people? Are we talking about the same professionals in the system now, who will be secure under the new arrangements? I had a sneaking suspicion that other people would be employed. I should be interested to know what will be the relationship between, for example, the personal advisers who will be newly trained and newly recruited into the service and the existing careers advisers in the system.

Baroness Blackstone: We need to distinguish here between the ConneXions service, which is about providing a whole range of personal advice for young people, and the provision for adults that we are discussing in this group of amendments. The Government are funding a new £54 million programme for adult advice and guidance. The LSC will be the agency funding that guidance. Local adult information, advice and guidance partnerships will be closely linked to the local learning partnerships. But the people who are currently involved in providing that adult advice and guidance will continue to do so under the new arrangements. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to press the matter, but I cannot do so at any other stage of the Bill. Does that mean that the present Careers Advisory Service will not have a role with regard to those under 19 or working with schools and young people on careers advice? Will that be contracted out to people other than those who are presently in the system and are presently doing that work?

Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, we have to distinguish here between provision made for young people and provision made for others. The Careers Service makes most of its provision for young people. They will be subsumed under the new ConneXions service. But those careers advisers who are working in adult guidance will continue to operate in adult guidance, funded by the Government through the LSC. The same people who have been providing this information, advice and guidance will continue to operate as such.

Baroness David: I am sorry to intervene again. If it were not so late, I should read quite a long extract from a letter I have received from the headmistress of Skipton High School, who is extremely anxious that the Careers Service should give her pupils the same service as it gives now. She says that those at the school could not possibly provide it themselves, and that they must have it. Many of the mainstream pupils still need the service. It will be for them as well as for adults. Will the Minister give that reassurance?

Baroness Blackstone: Yes.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("(including employment)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
	Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Financial resources: conditions]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 4, line 12, after ("may") insert ("after consulting providers or their representatives and such persons as it thinks fit").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This series of amendments falls into two distinct groups. One group, Amendments Nos. 65 to 67, relates only to the conditions under which the council might have access to the accounts and information of service providers.
	Under the Bill as presently drafted, it seems that the council would have almost unlimited rights of access to all financial and other information on the part of providers. On the face of it, that would seem contrary to natural justice. These amendments therefore seek to limit the rights of access to those matters that pertain to the council's business--hence giving such access and allowing such rights as are necessary for the carrying out of the council's functions. This is not a political point but a truly liberal one. It relates to the right to privacy of information on the part of providers.
	The second, and in many senses the more important, set of amendments--Amendments Nos. 63, 68 and 252--relates to the powers of the learning and skills council to set charges. Currently, neither the Further Education Funding Council nor the Secretary of State has powers to impose on providers requirements as to the fees that must be charged.
	Clause 6(3) consequently represents a major extension of current powers. At no stage in the development of the policies that underpin the Bill has there been any suggestion that such powers would be taken. Nor has there been any opportunity for public debate about either the Government's objectives in introducing controls on provider fees or about the way in which such powers may be used.
	The introduction of controls of this kind would represent a considerable erosion of the autonomy of further education colleges and an almost unprecedented interference with the rights of private training providers to establish their own fees structures. It would take away one of the few options open to providers in tailoring provision to local market needs--not just in setting open market fees but also in negotiating with employers on a shared responsibility for some types of publicly desirable trading such as NVQs. As drafted, the clause would appear to permit the LSC to impose different arrangements on different providers and, in doing so, impose unequal or unfair conditions on some individual providers or some classes of providers as compared to others.
	Without any indication from the Government as to the rationale for such a policy, the case for the imposition of conditions on fees has not been made. Although there may be justification for imposing common arrangements in some specific areas where forms of public funding are involved--such as individual learning accounts--no such explanation has been offered. Equally, although there may be a case for curbing some of the more extreme examples of fees policies seen in recent years both in the FE sector and among the private training providers, it is difficult to see how any national fees scheme could work. Market conditions vary enormously across the country and in different areas of vocational education and training. No single pricing regime could work without having different effects in different areas. For example, relatively high fees may be feasible in the south-east where incomes are high and the economy is buoyant but may have a disastrous effect on participation in depressed areas of Merseyside. Therefore, this series of amendments seeks elucidation from the Government as to precisely what they have in mind. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The learning and skills council will pass considerable sums of taxpayers' money--some £6 billion a year--to a wide range of providers of education and training. The Government believe it is essential that the council should be able to establish whether these funds have been used properly and in accordance with the conditions on which they have been given. If public funds have not been used properly the council will be able to take steps to recover them. Amendment No. 67 would restrict the exercise of the council's right of access to its statutory functions. The council is to be a statutory corporation created by Parliament and it may exercise only those powers granted to it by Parliament. This is a well-established principle of law. I have no problem with the concern that lies behind the amendment. For example, if the LSC funds workplace training at a major company--for example a car-maker or supermarket--clearly it is wrong for it to rummage through documents that deal with entirely unrelated and perhaps confidential manufacturing or retailing processes. But the amendment is unnecessary because this kind of behaviour would clearly not be permitted under the Bill.
	The Government believe that the remaining amendments will add considerably to bureaucracy and, although genuine, are misconceived. Under Clause 25 the Secretary of State may attach conditions to the grants that he makes to the council. Those conditions will in turn apply when financial resources are passed on to providers. It would be bizarre to require the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments to approve LSC conditions of funding which he had made in the first place. These amendments would require every change in a condition to come back to the Secretary of State, who would have to make a new order to amend previous orders, and so on and so forth. That is a waste of everybody's time, not least that of Parliament and this Chamber, and is hardly consistent with the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about excessive bureaucracy.
	But, more generally, these arrangements impose constraints upon the ability of the LSC to exercise flexible judgments about the financial agreements that it needs to reach with providers. By comparison, currently the FEFCs have a financial relationship with a relatively homogenous group of providers, principally further education colleges and some institutions in the higher education sector. The LSC, through its local bodies, will have direct financial relationships with several thousand providers, including employers, colleges, LEAs and voluntary organisations. To work properly it must have the ability to tailor its arrangements and should be able to do this flexibly. The Government believe that it would be inappropriate to impose on those arrangements a superstructure of statutory bureaucracy. I hope that that explains to some extent the rationale behind this part of the Bill and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I cannot say that I am satisfied on either count. The advice that I received from some of our lawyers in relation to the first matter was that the powers in the Bill were extremely sweeping and there was a case for curbing them.
	As to the second issue, I am disturbed because Clause 6 (3) represents a major extension of current powers. I shall withdraw the amendment for the present, but we may wish to return to it at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert--
	("(a) require any person receiving financial resources from the Council to provide the Council with such documents as requested by the Council as relate to their application for that financial resource;").

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I could start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I would have supported her very warmly on all the arguments she put. The whole of Clause 6 is extremely worrying. I think the autonomy of further education colleges and training providers is going to be seriously inhibited by it. The noble Lord the Minister is always eloquent on all these occasions, but he used a phrase which may resonate rather nervously outside this Chamber. He said that he would not want people to go rummaging around people's computers and files and all the rest of it for irrelevant material. I would not want them to go rummaging around even for relevant material.
	Clause 6(1) says that if the council itself provides financial resources it may impose conditions, which may include "any provisions described below". Clause 6(2)(a) refers to designated people being allowed access to a person's accounts and documents, and also to a person's computers and associated apparatus and material. That can only be done by gaining access to premises and there is absolutely nothing here about how that would be done, whether under licence or with some kind of permit. This simply is an unacceptable paragraph and I think that it should come out.
	I have no quarrel with the principle that where a provider is grant aided or receives money from the council there should be an obligation to provide all that the council may need that is relevant to the way in which it disposes of those funds and the way it uses them, given that the council would only grant aid or allocate funds on the basis of a specific remit to achieve a particular service which would have been specified at the outset.
	I have no quarrel with the idea that the provider must be accountable and that there should be an obligation to provide information to the council. Therefore, Amendment No. 64 would include any training providers receiving financial resources from the council being obliged to provide the council with such documents requested by the council as relate to their application for that financial resource. I think there is a very real issue here of autonomy and of access. Quite frankly, the method by which this information could be provided is very debatable. I believe that the wording in my amendment should be substituted for the wording in Clause 6(2)(a). I beg to move.

Lord Elton: If your Lordships agree to this amendment, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 65 to 67.

Lord Bach: The Government feel that circumstances covered in the noble Baroness's amendment do not exist in the real world. It would remove the provision giving the LSC access rights to any person it funds and substitute that with a bit of a mouse; that is, a requirement for potential providers to provide no more than information relating to an application for funding. The persons would include LEAs, FE colleges and private providers. The LSC will need powers of access for audit and related purposes connected with the proper use of council funds. An inability to seek assurance that funds are being used properly could severely hamper its ability to claw back funding which has been improperly used and put a large amount of taxpayers' money at risk.
	We argue that the simple reality is that the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be to deny the council the ability to inspect relevant providers' records, whether written or held on computers so as to establish whether taxpayers' money had been used properly. That is rather irresponsible and not something that any government could do. On that basis, we resist the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that she will withdraw it.

Baroness Blatch: That was a disappointing answer. The Minister gave no explanation of his meaning of "access". Can the council force access? Can it break in? Can it hack any computer?
	As I pointed out when I spoke to the amendment, I have no difficulty with someone who receives public funds being accountable for the use of those funds and being obliged under the law to provide the information required for audit purposes and/or the local council's satisfaction that those funds were being used for the purpose for which they were given.
	The Bill does not define the kind of person referred to. It could be the caretaker, the cleaner or anyone. The council designates "a person" and allows him access to a person's accounts. No one could see my accounts without breaking into my home. And if that person broke into my home he would not see those accounts unless he broke into my computer. And he could only break into my computer if he hacked into my password. Is that the power being given to the learning skills council? If so, it is important that the Minister explains what he means by "access".
	If I were in receipt of funding from the council for a purpose laid down by the council, I am proposing an obligation under the law to provide the council with all the information it needs as evidence that I am using that money for the purposes for which it was given. If I broke that law it would be for the law enforcers to deal with and not some undefined member of the council to come to my home, the premises of a private company, or an FE college and simply force access. It is important that the noble Lord spells out precisely what the provision means in practice.

Lord Tope: I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness--although my accounts are far less interesting than hers must be!
	We share strongly the concern. I do not argue with the noble Baroness about which of our amendments is the most appropriate. What is appropriate is the concern we share. Neither of us may yet have found the right words for an amendment. But can the Minister tell us--I do not know the answer--where else in legislation similar powers are granted to funding bodies? If he cannot answer tonight, perhaps he will let us know before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall wish to return. The powers granted here seem excessive and draconian. We should not lightly let them pass.

Lord Bach: Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour, but Members of the Committee are becoming somewhat overwrought on the issue. The noble Lord asks for examples. The provision is similar to the funding conditions from the FEFC and TEC funding contracts. There is nothing unusual in what the Government suggest here. The terms will be in the conditions of funding set out by the LSC in the normal way. As I have already said, these funding conditions are similar to those already in existence in law. The obligations go hand in hand with the obligations accompanying the provision of public funds. It is surely the duty of the Government to protect public funds.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that I have already said to the Minister that I, too, think it is the duty of the Government to protect public funds. However, as set out, this is an unacceptable power. The Minister still has not told the Committee whether in certain circumstances there could be forced entry, how that would be done or what definition is in place of a person who could be designated to hack into a computer or break into a company to seek access to their funds. It is important that this point is clearly understood. Once we have reached a clear understanding, it is also important that a better form of words is put onto the face of the Bill.
	Very small companies are doing their best to co-operate with New Deal programmes and various other training programmes. As it stands, those companies may come to believe that the Bill contains an unwieldy power enabling a person to break into a company to seek information even without any real grounds for suspicion. It appears that such a person has a right of access to a company's equipment.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness is correct to the extent that I did not reply in exact terms. I did say, and I shall repeat it now, that those terms will be set out in the funding conditions set out by the LSC. However, I accept that the noble Baroness deserves more than that. Following the Committee stage of the Bill, I shall write to her with any further detailed information I can give in relation to the kind of powers being sought here. It is a fair request and I shall try to answer it fairly.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. However, I am not seeking details on the powers being sought; I wish to learn how they are to be exercised. I am also seeking a definition of what kind of person could be designated by the LSC to carry out what in fact will be breaking and entering into private property. However, I shall now withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Funding of school sixth-forms]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 5, line 11, at end insert--
	("( ) Where an education authority has existing sixth form provision the Council must make a grant per sixth form pupil consistent with real terms value as defined in the average of the three financial years 1999-2001.").

Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks to persuade the Government to put on the face of the Bill what they have said in practice. On a number of occasions I have invited the Minister to confirm that funding for sixth-form pupils would be sustained per pupil rather than for the entire sixth form in real terms.
	On the last occasion that we had an exchange on this point, I recall that the noble Baroness said something along the lines of, "Yes, dependent on the numbers". My proposition does not depend on numbers. If the funding is to be made per pupil, then whether the numbers are high or low the authority will receive real terms funding. However, as I understand the Bill, if the numbers begin to fall then the school may fall victim to the possibility of a notice being published for the sixth form to close. However, that is a debate for another day.
	For the moment, the amendment states,
	"Where an education authority has existing sixth form provision--
	ahead of any publication of a notice to close--
	"the Council must make a grant per sixth form pupil consistent with real terms value as defined in the average of the three financial years 1999-2001".
	That is also a point at issue between these Benches and the Government; namely, the Government have taken one year as a baseline. However, we all know of the injustices that can arise out of using only a single year. It is much fairer to take an average over three years. Some schools probably had a very lean year this year and it would be unfair to use that as a base line if it was never meant to be sustained over a period. Therefore, there seems to be an argument for referring to the average over the previous three years.
	There is a concern because, as I said earlier, as far as I know, there is no plan to put in extra funding for this provision. The money will be top-sliced at national level and will be given to the National Council, which will then send it down the line administratively to 47 local skills councils, which will then send it down the line to even more local education authorities, which will then fund the individual schools with sixth forms. There will be some dissipation of that money as it goes down the line unless extra money for its administration is found.
	If LEAs receive less money than would have been the case had they received it through the normal grant-in-aid from the Government under the present system, they have a painful decision to make. It is difficult to reconcile the Government's promise that expenditure will be sustained in real terms per pupil if it is not matched with the kind of funding which would be needed in order for it to travel from government via a circuitous route through to the schools. There is great nervousness in the schools.
	As I believe I said at Third Reading, many of us--and I include myself among them--believe that, although it may take a while, this represents a death knell for our sixth forms. I know that the noble Baroness said with every sincerity at Second Reading that sixth forms will form part of the tapestry of provision for 16-plus education. However, I have known the noble Baroness for a very long time. We met at educational meetings long before she and I came to this place. Indeed, we met back in the days when I was in local government and even before my time in local government. I know that at times it has been a policy aim of the noble Baroness, or at least a policy that the noble Baroness has supported in the past, to move to a tertiary system for sixth-form education. Indeed, that has also been the policy of many of her colleagues who now find themselves in government. Therefore, I believe that there is genuine concern and nervousness among people.
	Lest it be misinterpreted, I do not want anyone to believe that the only provision that I would support for young people who are passing through school is to go into sixth forms. I believe that for many young people that is wholly inappropriate. Very often young people who choose to stay on in sixth-form education have not been properly advised and guided. They could be better placed by moving either into workplace training or into further education. Therefore, I have no wish to be branded as someone who considers that sixth form is the only provision. However, I believe very strongly that sixth forms must remain part of the tapestry of provision of education. That can be so only if they are funded in real terms at the rate at which they have been funded on average over the past three years.
	My final point is that there is a very real worry about the ways in which funding will be used to cause the demise of those schools. Certainly, my next amendment, which is linked with this amendment, proposes that,
	"Grants made under this section must be earmarked for individual schools or colleges".
	I say that because the schools and colleges themselves are now concerned that money will simply come down in a block. In the past, when the local education authority has held the money, it has funded each school, whether it be a school for 11 to 16 year-olds or for 11 to 18 year-olds.
	Now, all schools will be funded on an 11 to 16 basis and that separate funding will come through a separate system--as I said, a circuitous system--which will fund the sixth forms. Therefore, not only will schools be uncertain about what their grant will be for pupils up to the age of 16, but also those with sixth forms will be concerned about whether they will receive a fair allocation for post-16 pupils. Therefore, individual schools and colleges will be extremely concerned about their funding stream. It is important. If the reassurances that have been given already by the noble Baroness could be put on the face of the Bill, fears would be laid to rest and much anxiety would be assuaged. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: I shall take the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness together. Clause 7 will secure the LSC's power to fund LEAs in respect of school sixth form provision. For the financial year 2000-01, funding for school sixth forms amounts to some £1.22 billion.
	In the consultation paper on school sixth form funding which was issued last summer we made it clear that our objective was to raise standards and to tackle poorly performing institutions, which is something that I am sure the noble Baroness would endorse. We are committed to having a strong and effective sixth form sector as part of our drive to increase success for all our young people. We want young people to have the opportunity to gain access to a broad learning programme, including A-levels and vocational qualifications, wherever they live. We also want the funding arrangements for school sixth forms to be as transparent and straightforward as possible.
	I repeat that sixth forms will be part of the tapestry of provision. The noble Baroness asked about views that I may have expressed on this subject at various times in the past. I have always thought, as she has just admitted--she did not want to be misunderstood--that sixth form colleges provide extraordinarily good provision for many young people, as do generalist FE colleges. We seek choice and diversity.
	In the consultation document to which I have just referred, we sought views on whether LEAs should in future be funded for school sixth forms by the LSC, or whether they should continue to be funded through the local government finance system. In the light of responses received, in particular from head teachers, we have decided that funding for school sixth forms should be allocated to LEAs by the LSC. The LSC will also fund colleges and other providers of education and training to young people. For 16 to 19 year-olds, schools and colleges tend to provide the same type of teaching, curriculum and qualifications. Broadening the LSC's remit to include the funding of LEAs for school sixth form provision will bring greater coherence to the overall funding of 16 to 19 year-old provision in England.
	I can reassure the noble Baroness that individual schools will continue to receive their allocation of funds from the LEA, just as they do now. Those changes will not be introduced until 2002-03 at the earliest, and in planning for them we shall be working closely with LEAs, schools and others. Through that process we shall define more clearly the LSC's role in distributing funding to LEAs and establishing criteria for the allocation formulae for distributing funding down to individual schools.
	We have repeatedly said that current levels of funding for school sixth forms would be at least maintained in real terms where student numbers do not fall. I make that pledge again today. But we do not believe, as Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 appear to propose, that primary legislation is the appropriate place for making guarantees of this kind. I do not believe that it is ever used in that way.
	We have also said that the new funding system should not constrain the scope for expansion of successful sixth forms. We intend that a rise in pupil numbers should give rise to additional funding. Whether the addition could be on a fully pro rata basis--the key point--would depend on the availability of resources at the time. It would be wrong to introduce a system that takes no account at all of the degree to which pupil numbers may fall or rise over a period of time. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it would be irresponsible for any government to give absolute guarantees about the availability of future public funding.
	Amendment No. 69 also seeks to define a three-year period--1999-2001--as the baseline against which the real terms funding guarantee for school sixth forms will be set. The noble Baroness raised questions on that matter. I can say to the noble Baroness that we are consulting at present on a number of details around the way the changes to sixth form funding will be implemented. One specific question on which we are seeking views is the appropriate baseline period for calculating the real terms funding safeguard. It would be premature to undermine the consultative process by accepting this amendment when we have not yet had the opportunity to consider the views of all those who will be affected by the proposed new arrangements.
	Amendment No. 70 would reduce the role of the LEA to a mere post box, rather than continue to recognise, as we do, the LEA function of making allocations to individual schools. It is also unnecessary, given that we have been quite clear that our real terms funding guarantee will apply--again I want to give this reassurance to the noble Baroness--school by school, and not just in aggregate. I would add in passing that I am slightly confused to find a reference specifically to "colleges" in an amendment to a clause concerned with the funding of schools with sixth forms.
	In the light of what I have said, and the reassurance I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendments.

Baroness Blatch: I entirely accept the explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the appropriate period is under discussion. My understanding was that the Government were minded to take a particular view. That had caused some concern. So I am grateful for that. Of course I accept that that will take some time. The amendment will have to wait.
	I was talking recently to the head of a school with a sixth form who had responded to the consultation paper about these arrangements. He admitted that there was a good deal of welcome for the proposals. It was interesting to learn the basis on which he said that that welcome came. He said that he was fairly unhappy about the way the sixth form was being funded at the moment through the LEA, and the fact that core funding for schools was being cut all the time. He saw this proposal as a lifeline. It gave him high expectations. He thought the school's funding would be more secure and better guaranteed if it came from national funds specifically for sixth forms, instead of coming from the LEA through the block grant. I have to say that, if that is a commonly held belief--which I understand it to be--it is naive in the extreme. I have seen and heard nothing to convince me that there is going to be a more generous stream of money coming down through the system.
	The noble Baroness suggested that Amendment No. 70 would reduce the role of the LEA to a mere post box. I have to say that that is pretty well what they are going to be. This is money that, although originally allocated to LEAs through the block grant, is going to be taken by the Government and given to the national council. It will then be given to the local schools councils. It will then be given to the respective LEA. Finally, it will be given to the schools. One cannot say that the schools will be funded to the same value, depending on what baseline is actually chosen, and then expect an LEA to use its discretion not to fund to that value. One can say that the LEAs will be given sufficient money to sustain that level of value, but what the LEAs do is a matter for them. Nor can we say that the schools are to be given some guarantee.
	At this moment I would argue that the children, the parents, the staff and the governors of the school are concerned about the outcome of these policies, and not, I suggest, the mechanism for getting the money to them. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that schools can be assured that they will receive this money. The only guarantee the Government will not give--and I understand that--is an absolute guarantee for unknown numbers of pupils who will appear in the system in the future. The reassurances that have been given in the past fit ill if the money coming down this route can be dissipated on the way.
	The Minister has given me enough to enable me to withdraw the amendment because I know that the discussions continue. But I shall return to it before the end of the passage of this Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Page 5, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) Prior to imposing conditions made under subsection (2) above, the Council shall consult providers or their representative organisations, whichever is the most appropriate for the circumstances concerned.
	( ) In imposing conditions made under subsection (2) above, the Council shall have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State.").

Lord Tope: The LSC will in the future be providing the funding for school sixth forms and understandably it is given power to develop schemes for assessing their performance. It will presumably then base its funding decisions on the results of those assessments. I have no problem with that, though I have anxieties as to how it will work in practice.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to ask that, before the LSC imposes the conditions which it will be empowered to make under subsection (2), it should first consult with the,
	"providers or their representative organisations, whichever is the most appropriate for the circumstances concerned",
	and,
	"In imposing [such] conditions ... have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State".
	I am sure that that will be the case in any event, but I seek assurances from the Minister on both those points and perhaps those assurance will best be given on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 71 proposes that the LSC must consult providers or their representative bodies before it imposes any conditions on the way grant for school sixth form provision may be used, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained.
	Given that LEAs secure but do not directly provide school sixth form provision, the amendment would in effect require the LSC to consult some 1,800 individual schools with sixth forms or their LEAs or their representatives before being able to make grant to LEAs for their school sixth forms. That would add another layer of bureaucracy to the system when we are trying to simplify the way post-16 learning is organised and funded. We expect the LSC to work closely with providers and their representatives, including schools and LEAs, and to take account of their views in determining their funding and conditions of funding. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord about the Government's intentions.
	But that should be a flexible and dynamic process. It should not be weighed down by a lot of administration and, as a consequence, delay. We do not believe that statutory obligations to consult on the detail of the conditions of individual grants are helpful or necessary. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Tope: I am not suggesting that they should necessarily consult on each grant, but certainly they should consult before conditions are imposed.
	I will not rise to the bait that the Minister suggests to me; that is, that I am imposing extra bureaucracy. Indeed, in the light of the comments I made at the beginning of this afternoon I resist that suggestion strongly. I know from personal experience that some discussion before a specific condition as envisaged under Clause 7(2) is imposed, can considerably cut down time and thereby reduce rather than increase subsequent bureaucracy.
	Of course I shall not press the amendment at this time. But I am disappointed that the Minister did not recognise the legitimate concern that exists in schools and school sixth forms in having conditions imposed upon them which may not be appropriate or fully considered or understood. Nobody is looking for consultation processes. They are seeking not to have conditions imposed upon them without reference and without discussions.
	I hope the Minister will consider this matter a little further. Whether it is necessary to have something on the face of the Bill can perhaps be discussed, but the point is well made. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Links between education and training and employment]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 5, line 18, after ("of") insert ("appropriate").

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 74. I return to a theme which we discussed earlier; namely, that where provision is secured it should be appropriate. That refers to Clause 8 which states:
	"The Council may secure the provision of facilities for the gaining of work experience by young persons receiving education".
	I say "appropriate" for the same reasons: that it is more satisfactory for the individual; more fruitful in outcome; and the person is more likely to benefit and become a positive, contributory member of society. Therefore, it makes sense. We know that simply securing the provision of facilities can sometimes be inappropriate. It is worth putting on the face of the Bill that it should be appropriate.
	Amendment No. 74 is important. Again we are talking about flexibility for people with learning disabilities. Clause 8(2) states,
	"The Council may secure the provision of facilities designed to form links between (on the one hand) employers and (on the other) persons falling within subsection (3)".
	That is a very important provision in terms of people with disabilities and learning difficulties. Making the link between education, training and the employer can be extremely troublesome for some people. They need a great deal of help. Again, we have a dead cut-off point at the age of 19. All the arguments have already been deployed. Persons with learning difficulties should have more flexibility. Therefore, there should be some accommodation up to the age of 25. I would like there to be no distinction at all. When we had the fairly drawn-out debate about the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable", I understood from the Minister that that argument has now passed by. For this group of people some flexibility to the age of 25 is important. I hope that the Minister will be accommodating in her response.

Lord Rix: I support Amendments Nos. 74 and 91. As the experience of Mencap's Pathway employment service demonstrates, some young people need on-the-job coaching before they can make the best of work experience opportunities or they may need training in how to apply for a placement or how to obtain one. It may be something as fundamental as requiring support to decide the kind of work they wish to try. Even with the best intentions, this is a complex area which should command considerable commitment from government, which I hope will be forthcoming. If people feel that they are short of experience in this particular department, Mencap will be more than happy to give them any information in this regard which has been garnered from the experience of a quarter of a century in placing people with learning disabilities in open employment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. In many senses, they duplicate the amendments already put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I endorse what she said about the need for work experience to be appropriate. We have already covered that in our earlier discussions. As regards the second matter, our proposal is not just that the facility should be applied to the disabled, but that there should be flexibility for all over the age of 19 for the reasons that we have discussed earlier. There are some who miss out on educational experiences and for whom work experience is appropriate even though they are over the age of 19. I support what has already been said and make that extra point.

Baroness Blackstone: I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 and 91 together because they all relate to the power of the LSC under Clause 8 in providing facilities for work experience and for education business links. I was delighted to hear the endorsement that was given by all those who have spoken to these amendments about the value of work experience for many young people.
	Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are really unnecessary in the context of this kind of statutory power. In fact, it would be unreasonable for the LSC to secure inappropriate facilities for work experience or, alternatively, to secure facilities for inappropriate work experience. This much is implicit within the provision as it stands. A statutory organisation must, as a general principle, act reasonably. I hope that I am making myself clear in this respect.
	Amendment No. 75 proposes that the Secretary of State may extend the power to secure facilities for work experience for an older group. Our intention in the clause as drafted is to maintain and develop existing initiatives designed to give young people in schools and of school age valuable insight into working environments and to inform their career choices. This is explicitly about young people of school age.
	Employers, LEAs and schools have been working together for a number of years, including through Education Business Partnerships. A whole range of activities are now in place at local level, enabling pupils to gain valuable insights into the world of work and to inform their career choices. Employers report very considerable benefits from these activities.
	Clause 111, which gives further education corporations further powers to collaborate with schools and others in the provision of secondary education, will help increase the number of young people who benefit from vocational learning and links with the world of work.
	As regards adults, equivalent opportunities are already available as part of FE, where a substantial amount of provision is vocational and provides links for all learners between the worlds of work and learning. Similarly, such arrangements would be entirely superfluous to the needs of people who are undertaking training where contact with employers and the business world are all part and parcel of the learning experience. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will see that they have no need to press any of these amendments.
	There remains the issue of how these powers will relate to the particular needs of those with learning difficulties, as raised by Amendments Nos. 73 and 91. I shall deal, first, with the amendment that proposes to extend the LSC's power to provide for education-business links up to the age of 25, in the case of students with learning difficulties.
	I have already described the vocational focus of a great deal of FE and training where very strong links between colleges, training providers and employers have, I am glad to say, been developed and sustained over a great many years. This has benefited learners over a broad age range and with a range of needs, including people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Further education colleges work hard at developing links with business. Indeed, such contact is a core element in some courses and is often a central and intrinsic part of any training experience.
	I must once again state that I see no reason for Clause 8 to provide for those over the age of 19. I say again, the purpose of Clause 8 is to allow the LSC to support and expand education-business activities for young people in schools, as well as to continue to build on the work of the FEFC and TECs in respect of those of school age who are in post-16 learning. I believe that this amendment is, therefore, inappropriate and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
	However, I take a rather different view of Amendment No. 91 to Clause 13. The question is whether the LSC should have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties, as it does when securing its main duties under Clauses 2 and 3, when exercising its powers to provide for work experience and education-business links. I have considerable sympathy with this point and I would accept the principle behind it. However, I should like to reflect further on the precise wording of the amendment and return on Report with a government amendment. I trust that Members of the Committee will be content to proceed on that basis.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the Minister's comments with regard to Clause 8. This is not a complicated amendment. It simply seeks to link employment with education and training. If all three could be incorporated as measures to which the council had to have regard, that would be helpful. I hear what the Minister said with regard to what one would expect anyone acting reasonably to do. However, we all know of work experience that is not so "inappropriate" that it could be seriously challenged. Many people are adaptable and they can make effective use of almost any experience. However, I am concerned about more vulnerable people, in particular those with disabilities. I hope that the Government will consider introducing some flexibility in regard to provision for those below and above the age of 19 and will consider the importance of work experience being appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Assessments and means tests]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Divide Clause 9 into two clauses, the first (Assessments) to consist of subsections (1) and (2) and the second (Means tests) to consist of subsections (3) and (4).

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is a minor amendment. Clause 9 as drafted deals with two totally separate issues; namely, assessments of providers and setting means tests. We believe that it makes sense to divide the clause into two clauses dealing with those two separate issues. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: Although we have some sympathy with the thought which gives rise to this amendment, the fact of the matter is that the provisions it contains are adequately and appropriately drafted. We cannot see that the amendment would make any material improvement. Indeed, on the contrary, it would unnecessarily break apart two sets of provisions which both explicitly relate to the LSC's funding powers under Clause 5. I hope that that will persuade the noble Baroness not to press her amendment to a vote.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am not really persuaded but I can see that parliamentary counsel are formidable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Further education: governors]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (1).

Baroness Blackstone: In moving Amendment No. 77 I wish to speak also to the other government amendments that are grouped with it. However, in speaking to these amendments I shall refer also to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	The Secretary of State and the National Assembly announced last year, as part of the revised accountability framework for further education colleges, that the FEFCE and FEFCW should be able to intervene at individual colleges by nominating up to two governors. We intend the LSC and the CETW to have the same capability but that they should have the power to appoint up to two additional members to any college governing body as they consider necessary. This power will allow the LSC and CETW to intervene, for example, where they consider that there might be mismanagement or potential mismanagement by the governing body, or where there are signs that the educational provision at the college is failing, before the problem becomes so serious as to warrant intervention by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly, and to threaten the provision of post-16 education, as was the case, regrettably, at Halton, Bilston and Gwent Colleges.
	The key reason for this provision is, as I have said, to allow the councils to intervene early. Amendment No. 79 would restrict this power to the point that it would be quite useless. If the criteria required for the Secretary of State's intervention under Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act had to be satisfied before the LSC could exercise this power, he could himself act and there would be no need for the LSC to do so. But it would mean that the opportunity to address problems at an early stage had been missed and cases such as those I have mentioned might be repeated. I therefore must resist this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
	The power of appointment should not be restricted to vacancies only. If there was no vacancy the councils could not act. Even if there were to be a vacancy it may not be appropriate for the LSC or the CETW to make an appointment to it, for example if the vacancy was for an elected staff or a student member. In such cases we would be denying staff and students the opportunity to be represented.
	Amendments Nos. 78 and 164 give the LSC and the CETW the power to make appointments of up to two additional members direct to any governing body, whatever size it may be and irrespective of any vacancies. Appointments would take effect immediately.
	The amendment to Clause 11 also clarifies that the LSC may only intervene at colleges which mainly serve students from England, as opposed to those serving students in Wales. Amendment No. 164 provides similarly for the CETW in Wales. This ensures that there is no overlap of responsibility: a college cannot mainly serve two countries at the same time.
	Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249, which affect the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, are consequential to this provision. At present, that Act only makes provision for governing bodies themselves to appoint members, except in the special circumstances that apply to former voluntary aided sixth-form colleges under Section 30. The amendments to Sections 29 and 31 of the Schedule to the Act are necessary so that the instruments of government for designated institutions and further education corporations can include provision for governors appointed by the LSC or CETW. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I speak to Amendment No. 79, which is also in this grouping. We thank the Minister for her explanation and for the clarification involved, but we are still not completely convinced by what she said. Clause 11(2) at present gives unconstrained powers to allow the learning and skills council to appoint up to two governors to any or all colleges within the further education sector. That seems an unreasonable interference with the autonomy of individual colleges and is inconsistent with the Government's declared policy of intervention only in inverse proportion to success.
	The Secretary of State will have powers to intervene under the amended Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, including the power to dismiss existing governors or to appoint new governors on his initiative. No explanation has been given as to why it is necessary for the learning and skills council to have parallel powers to those of the Secretary of State. The amendment would restrict the powers of appointment to those situations in which the Secretary of State has the power to act; in other words, where colleges are having serious problems of mismanagement; where there is a failure to discharge a statutory duty; where the governors are acting unreasonably; or where there are serious weaknesses. In that sense, our amendment is totally reasonable.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She has gone further than I have in trying to at least bring forward some rationale for the use of the power whilst at the same time querying the power. All that we know is that there is a power to appoint additional members to a governing body; the conditions under which the power would be used are not spelt out in any way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, there are other powers in statutes. I do not see the repeal of those powers anywhere in this Bill.
	No trigger mechanism is set out. We do not know what would trigger the concern; on what basis that would happen; what would be the process; or what consultation would take place with the governing body. It is an open-ended power that allows the council to add, either objectively or subjectively, additional governors to the governing body.
	I know of the powers in the previous Act and I know the reason for them. There are real examples--the Minister has already referred to one or two of them--where FE colleges have quite clearly needed some external influence in bringing sanity to bear on their management arrangements. At the same time, the way in which Clause 11 is set out is really not acceptable. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and shall accept the government amendments so far as they go, but when I first read the Bill, the idea that the council could simply fill vacancies was entirely unacceptable.

Baroness Blackstone: There really is some misunderstanding here. I have tried to explain that there have been a number of highly regrettable cases where the governing bodies of large FE colleges have failed to ensure that the quality of provision, standards and probity in relation to financial activities that we all require from an FE college have been pursued properly. Where it looks as if things are going wrong, it is entirely right that the LSC, which is to be the frontline body in close contact with providers, should be able to intervene early and provide for additional governors to help remedy the situation.
	There can be no question of the LSC filling normal vacancies. That is not what the provision is about. It is a last resort measure when a governing body of an FE college is failing in its duty. It would be completely wrong for noble Lords opposite to oppose amendments which are entirely designed to try to make sure that we have an adequate system on which we can rely and can intervene to prevent the kind of failures that have been happening, I am afraid, with some regularity under the existing system. In the light of what I have said, I greatly hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will not press her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her response. The powers are seen to be somewhat draconian in relation to what is proposed. I shall not move the amendment, but I shall read in Hansard what the Minister has said and I shall look more carefully at the government amendments. We may want to return to the matter at Report stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendments No. 78:
	Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
	Page 6, line 13, leave out ("fill the vacancy") and insert ("be a member of the governing body of an institution which--
	(a) falls within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992), and
	(b) mainly serves the population of England").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: My name is on the Marshalled List as opposing the clause. I did not make myself clear enough to the Minister when I responded to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I referred to the way in which I read the Bill when it was first drafted. The Minister has tonight amended the Bill. It provided at the outset that the council would have the power to fill vacancies. I said that I was somewhat relieved that it was not the case that the body would be given the power to fill vacancies.
	In speaking to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I said that I wholly accept the need to do something externally by way of putting in extra governors--that is one mechanism which has worked. It has certainly worked in some grant-maintained schools in the past and it seemed a proper way to go about it. But this clause does not say that. It does not specify the conditions under which that power will be exercised. It gives no indication of what would be the trigger for such a power to be exercised.
	It is extremely important that if there is to be a clause in the Bill giving power to the council to add additional governors, it must, either in subsections, a schedule, or by means of regulation, set out the rationale for the power. In other words, if the power applies where the behaviour or lack of control of a governing body is such that a further education college is not being managed well by its governing body, it is entirely legitimate. But something along those lines should be on the face of the Bill and not simply an open-ended invitation to the council and power to add additional members. That is why I oppose the clause and why I believe it should be amended and brought back.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining what she meant with regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I apologise if I slightly misconstrued what she had to say.
	This is an important clause. The Government and the National Assembly for Wales announced, following the Public Accounts Committee hearings on Halton College and Gwent Tertiary College respectively, that the further education funding councils would be given the power to nominate up to two governors to any college governing body as they thought necessary. That measure was introduced on 11th October 1999 in both England and Wales. We consider that the LSC and CETW should have the same capability. That is what it is about.
	Perhaps it should not surprise us that the noble Baroness opposes this clause. It is after all a provision to allow early intervention in colleges to prevent failure and to deal with poor management before it has a serious effect on provision. Our inheritance on taking office was one of sleaze and mismanagement in the further education sector, allowed to flourish by a government who took a back seat whenever they could. We have made every effort to tackle these problems since taking office, but have had to face the serious and much publicised cases that I have mentioned. Unfortunately, these have been the tip of the iceberg. At far too many of our colleges we have found low standards of provision and the improper use of public funds. In dealing with the backlog of failure we have been hampered by the present statutory provisions.
	The lack of control which the previous administration had over the sector and the hands-off approach that they took led directly to the problems at these colleges lasting so long and getting completely out of control. The funding councils had been hindered by inadequate powers to intervene. We need to applaud excellence, but we also have to deal swiftly with failure. No one should doubt our determination to do so.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State's powers to intervene when a college is in difficulty are a last resort. All too often by the time mismanagement or failure is drawn to his attention it is too late to avoid some adverse effect on the quality of education or the proper use of public funds. We want the frontline body with immediate responsibility for the management of the sector to be able to intervene quickly and effectively. We consider that a power to appoint up to two governors is necessary to allow the LSC or CETW to intervene and influence governing bodies where they are aware that there are existing or potential problems. That is the point.
	Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness. I am absolutely convinced that the LSC would not wish to use this power except in such circumstances. It is not a power that we would expect to be used frequently, nor one that should be used lightly. But its availability may prevent a problem becoming deep-rooted, leading to more widespread failure that could have a serious impact on students. Unfortunately, I am only too aware how the education of large numbers of students has been blighted. I have seen the representatives from staff and students who, through no fault of their own, have been the victims of serious mismanagement.
	However, the nomination of members, as under present arrangements, will not be enough to allow rapid intervention, because appointments need to be made by the governing body and this could be delayed for several months until its next meeting. The power to nominate members already exists, but the power to appoint rests with the governing body. We simply want the LSC and CETW to be able to intervene immediately and not be delayed by the requirement that a governing body, which is in difficulty, meets to make the appointments. Every delay can make the problem worse, and in a case of possible mismanagement the governing body may even attempt to avoid the appointments for as long as six months. That is clearly unacceptable. That is why we have chosen to give the councils the power of appointment in this clause. But I should make clear that, fundamentally, this is a technical change: if we did nothing in the Bill, the LSC would have a power to nominate additional governors in the same way as the funding councils do now. The point of this provision is to make the exercise of the power more effective.
	I hope that I have been able to allay the noble Baroness's concerns by my remarks both now and in response to earlier amendments to the clause. I hope that she will accept that there is advantage in intervening earlier, and that this is a power to be used only rarely and after great consideration. It is not a novel power. As the noble Baroness has said, the previous government took similar powers in respect of grant-maintained schools and used them, rightly. I realise that these powers were for the Secretary of State. However, we firmly believe that it will be more effective if the power is exercised by the body responsible for the funding and supervision of the sector. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the strength of our argument in favour of such powers and will feel able to withdraw her objection.

Baroness Blatch: I am disappointed that the Minister has used a briefing note that was clearly written long before we came into the Chamber today. It took no account whatever of what I said.
	I believe that the Bill should contain such a power. I believe that there is a case for early intervention. I believe it is right that additional governors should be appointed. I agree with all the reasons given by the noble Baroness as a rationale. I did not disagree with any of that, and indeed I said so, not just the first time, but the second time I spoke to amendments concerning this provision.
	My point is that the Bill as presently drafted does not give any of those reasons why the power should be used. There is no subsection stating how the power should be used or under what conditions. If the power is for use where there are existing and/or potential troubles brewing in the management of a further education college, Clause 11 should contain a subsection to the effect that the power is not totally open-ended and unconstrained, but is there for a reason. I do not argue with any of the reasons given by the noble Baroness in her rather long exposition. She made reference at the end to my statement that a similar power had been put on the statute book and had been used to some effect.
	Philosophically, I have no objection; in practice, I have no objection. But this is an open-ended power on the face of the Bill. It will not reassure further education colleges which have enjoyed some autonomy, as the noble Baroness said. Where they are working well, we want that to continue. But there ought to be some attempt in the clause to set out how the powers would be used and what would trigger them. There should be some description of the process, even if it appeared in a schedule.
	I want there to be no misunderstanding of how much I support the policy behind the clause. However, it should not remain in this form without proper qualification regarding the use of the power. If the noble Baroness has no more to say, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 8.

Lord Elton: As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 57 I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume. House resumed.

Northern Ireland Bill

Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
	House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.